IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 85 of 218 · 6,517 total
Manfred Sauer GmbH & Manfred Sauer v.Qufora A/S
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson entities before the Local Division Munich regarding European Patent EP 3 342 086. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, finding that Motorola could have made the amendment earlier with reasonable diligence, as it had already sought similar injunctive relief in parallel UK proceedings in December 2023.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as inadmissible an application by 10x Genomics and Harvard College for re-examination of proceedings (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) under R.245 RoP. The application sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's earlier decision overturning a preliminary injunction in favor of 10x regarding EP 4108782. The court held that the phrase indicating assessment by a technically qualified court did not constitute use of personal judicial opinion as evidence, and that the cost order in the interim proceedings had a proper legal basis under R.242.1 RoP.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH
Motorola Mobility LLC filed a patent infringement action against Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Ericsson GmbH before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 780 758. Motorola subsequently applied for leave to amend its claims to add requests for injunctive relief, recall, permanent removal, and destruction of infringing embodiments. The Court rejected the application, holding that Motorola failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l.
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 402 415 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, confirmed the parties' cost agreement, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to the claimant.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The core dispute revolves around the dismissal of their patent application based on a cited document (D5), which the appellant claims is no longer active and that the respondent illegally raised the issue of Common General Knowledge.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.
Oracle International Corporation v.Cis It Solutions Pvt Ltd
Oracle International Corporation challenged an Arbitral Award that denied it the transfer of the domain name www.exadata.in, despite Oracle holding registered trademarks for 'EXADATA.' The Delhi High Court found that the arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence and suggested the award was contrary to public policy. While the court did not overturn the award immediately, it initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the respondent, signaling a significant legal challenge to the initial domain dispute resolution.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint in a suit concerning trademark and passing off infringement. The amendment was sought because a previously pending trademark application (Z GOLD) had subsequently been granted registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. Both parties consented to the change, allowing the plaintiff to incorporate this new registered right into the ongoing litigation.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a EUR 500,000 security deposit it had lodged with the Unified Patent Court in connection with ex parte interim measures granted against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. After initially depositing the security to enable prompt enforcement, Ortovox subsequently obtained and provided a bank guarantee and sought release of the deposited amount. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the Registrar to release the deposited security, subject to the expiry of the respondents' right to seek review.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 926 698 B1. The claimant sought review of the judge-rapporteur's decision to postpone ruling on the admission of four additional auxiliary requests filed under Rule 30.2 RoP. The court upheld the procedural order, holding that Rule 30.2 RoP leaves the timing of the admission decision to the court's discretion, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not automatically apply to later amendment applications under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 concerning U.S. Patent 10,981,350. The motion reflects a settlement between the parties, ending the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 concerning patent 10,981,350. The parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC challenges Shoals Technologies Group's photovoltaic connector patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious by combining conventional elements found across several prior art references related to solar power installations.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC has filed an opening petition challenging Shoals Technologies Group's solar power patents on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed lead assembly configurations are merely conventional combinations of known wiring and molding techniques found in multiple prior art references.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson Inc. et al. filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against XR Communications LLC's patent related to wireless communications. The petition challenges key claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the technology is obvious over prior art references Trigui and Rudrapatna. The grounds focus on the predictability of adopting a 'cross' connect approach for MIMO transceivers.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging DexCom's remote monitoring patents, arguing that the claims are obvious. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed methods and systems unpatentable.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom regarding claims related to remote patient monitoring and glucose management. The PTAB found sufficient evidence that the petitioner met its burden of demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds (102 and 103).
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
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.