IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 44 of 218 · 6,517 total
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s response defends the PTAB’s institution of unpatentability findings for its NGS enrichment patents, rejecting Tecan’s arguments for a discretionary denial under §325(d). The petitioner emphasizes material error, proper nexus analysis, and lack of procedural abuse.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN contests Tecan's request for discretionary denial of a parallel IPR, arguing procedural impropriety and lack of supporting authority. The response cites General Plastic factors and the strength of its claim‑1 invalidity case.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing the Board abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and allowed duplicate petitions. The request targets the institution decision for patent No. 10,036,012 covering NGS genotyping methods.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB denied QIAGEN’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00028, leaving the institution of the patent intact.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request relies on discretionary denial authority under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The Director denied QIAGEN's request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00027, leaving the institution standing. No patentability arguments were revisited.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s petition challenges Tecan’s request for discretionary denial of a Director Review, arguing that the General Plastic factors do not support denial when multiple unrelated parties file IPRs. The Board is urged to reject Tecan’s request as procedurally improper and unsupported by precedent.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Court decision.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
PTAB issued Director Review requests for IPR2025-00028 and IPR2025-00029, limiting responses to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. QIAGEN and Tecan must file brief replies within five business days.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
Petitioners (Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T) seek to invalidate Aspen Networks’ 2011 VoIP handoff patent, arguing all 28 claims are obvious over Tagg and the Kottilingal‑Politis combination. They also request the Board not to deny institution under discretionary statutes.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Tecan’s ’108 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for next‑generation sequencing, arguing obviousness over Shapero, Delseny, Jones and Hamady references.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN seeks an IPR of Tecan’s ’241 patent covering NGS duplicate‑read detection, asserting that all 16 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as McCloskey, Porreca, and Schmitt.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tecan’s ’012 patent covering nucleic‑acid enrichment for NGS, asserting that the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition argues the examiner relied on an unsupported declaration and that no secondary considerations exist.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Tecan’s ’357 sequencing patent, arguing that the invention was fully disclosed in earlier barcoding and sequencing literature.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics, challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 10876108 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that the Examiner erred in relying solely on secondary considerations, adopting the Petitioner's view that combining Shapero and Delseny renders multiple claims obvious.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned the PTAB against Tecan Genomics regarding claims related to Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The Board instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Tecan Genomics for patent number 11725241. The Board found sufficient evidence of unpatentability across multiple claims based on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN Sciences successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial proceedings against Tecan Genomics, Inc. regarding a high-throughput sequencing patent (11098357). The Board found reasonable likelihood that claims 1 through 10 are unpatentable under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Aspen Networks, Inc.
T-Mobile USA's IPR challenge against Aspen Networks regarding VoIP network routing claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically concerning how SIP signaling sequences are maintained across network handoffs.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
EOFlow appealed an order of the Central Division Milan that denied its request to join two parallel provisional measures proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 4 201 327. EOFlow additionally requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal and shorten deadlines so that a decision could be issued before the scheduled oral hearings in the first instance. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that EOFlow had unnecessarily delayed filing its appeal and had not sufficiently taken into account the respondent's right to file a response.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 043 492, a patent dispute between SharkNinja (appellant/defendant) and Dyson Technology Limited (respondent/claimant). The Court of Appeal rejected Dyson's application to disregard several grounds of appeal raised by SharkNinja, finding them sufficiently indicated in the statement of grounds. However, the court excluded two new pieces of evidence (FBD 27 and FBD 28) submitted by SharkNinja, finding they were not convincingly shown to be relevant and were submitted with undue delay.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed Suinno's request for discretionary review of an order by the Paris Central Division that granted Microsoft's request for security for costs and declared Suinno's own request for security inadmissible. The Court of Appeal held that Suinno was required to first request the Court of First Instance to grant leave to appeal before seeking discretionary review, and since Suinno failed to do so, its request was inadmissible.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,331,379 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,313,379 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion and K.Mizra jointly moved to dismiss their IPR and asked the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
Ewald Dörken AG has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Schaeffler’s wheel‑bearing coating patent, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim terms.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K.Mizra Inc.
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,331,379 held by K.Mizra LLC. The core challenge asserts that the claimed DRAM controller features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including LaBerge and Bowater.
Ewald Dorken AG v.Schaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This order concerns procedural applications filed in revocation proceedings related to European patent No. 4 151 181 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought a 9-day extension of the deadline for lodging its rejoinder to align it with another deadline, but the respondents (Meril entities) opposed the request. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, holding that procedural efficiency must yield to the principle of fair trial, as granting the extension would create an imbalance since the claimants had already complied with the shorter, standard deadline.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.