IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 52 of 218 · 6,517 total
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Unilever France v.I.G.B. S.r.l.
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning a request by Unilever France to modify its claims regarding ancillary measures in an infringement action brought by I.G.B. S.r.l. relating to European patent EP3997002. The court held that Rule 263 RoP did not apply because Unilever's modifications concerned only the modalities of execution of ancillary measures and did not alter the object or scope of the dispute.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in SEP/FRAND litigation. OPPO and OROPE appealed the Local Division Mannheim's refusal to order Panasonic to produce various license agreements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could change at a later stage.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Chamber Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that, at the current stage of proceedings, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, but left open the possibility that a different assessment could be reached at a later stage when FRAND-related issues are addressed.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected their applications for production of evidence under R.190 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning 4G standard-essential patents. The court held that at the current stage of the proceedings, where the question of basic licensing willingness had not yet been decided, the applications did not meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality, though the assessment could differ at a later stage.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Harbor Island Dynamic’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision. The brief asserts the Board properly weighed evidence, did not abuse discretion, and that claim construction was unnecessary. The Director is urged to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its TSV patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial factors related to a pending district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic has requested Director Review of two IPRs involving Samsung. The Board limited Samsung's response to five pages and five business days, prohibiting new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’609 patent covering through‑silicon‑via structures, arguing that all 18 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Cooney, Dean, Farooq, and Chen.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 54 claims of SiOnyx’s ’737 image‑sensor patent, asserting anticipation or obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
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.