IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 9 of 218 · 6,517 total
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the admission of new evidence in proceedings related to provisional measures ordered by the Local Division Munich regarding patent EP 2 152 073. The Court of Appeal disregarded Sumi Agro's Exhibit SA17 (an excerpt from a book already partially submitted in first instance) and Syngenta's conditional counter-exhibits FF28-29, but admitted Syngenta's Exhibits FF24-27 relating to the purchase and analysis of a potentially different version of the contested Kagura product (Kagura 2024).
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Hybridgenerator ApS
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Copenhagen confirmed its ex parte order of August 26, 2024, granting Hybridgenerator ApS's application for the preservation of evidence and inspection of property under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure, concerning European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. The respondents (collectively 'rekvisiti') had sought review of the order under Article 60(6) of the UPC Agreement, primarily arguing that the patent was invalid, that the evidence did not support infringement, and that certain parties should not have been included. The court found that Hybridgenerator had presented reasonably available evidence supporting a plausible infringement claim and that the inclusion of all four companies and the individual was justified given the close intermingling of the parties.
LAMA France v.Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.
This case concerns procedural requests filed by LAMA France in response to an enforcement application by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) following a November 13, 2024 infringement decision concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. LAMA sought a stay of execution, a restricted confidentiality circle limited to counsel only, and subsidiarily a €2 million guarantee. The Local Division of Paris rejected the stay request for lack of jurisdiction, partially granted the confidentiality circle request under Rule 262A RoP, and rejected the guarantee request.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause. The Board emphasized that prior case law does not excuse delayed filings.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their FPGA patent. They contend that recent court delays and the cancellation of a Markman hearing render the Board's discretionary denial inappropriate.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against U.S. Patent No. 10,413,047 for a hat holder system. The Board found that the petition demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, including anticipation by KR ’458.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against X1 Discovery's patent on Information Retrieval/Search Indexing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 103, specifically regarding the combination of prior art references (Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, Wu).
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore - I
The appeal challenged the imposition of service tax under the 'Intellectual Property Right' category on payments made by HAL to BAE System for technical knowhow and assistance related to aircraft manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled that since the contract involved a temporary transfer of technology, it did not fall under the definition of IPR services chargeable to service tax.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent recommendation made by the Patent Office in a post-grant opposition application filed by Low Cost Standard Therapeutics. The petitioner argued that the process violated the Patents Act, 1970, specifically by denying them an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court quashed the impugned notice and the Board's earlier recommendations.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei Technologies against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989, which relates to methods and devices for transmitting/receiving a High Efficiency Signal Field B (HE-SIG-B) in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a mixed ruling, finding partial infringement while addressing FRAND/competition law defenses, exhaustion arguments, and IEEE Bylaws issues, with costs split 80/20 against the defendants.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care's European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. Roche raised a preliminary objection based on a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing suit, which was rejected. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation action, finding that the grounds for invalidity (added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step) were not well founded, and maintained the patent as granted.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendants Yves Prevoo (managing director) and Easee Holding B.V. (parent company), who argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over claims based on personal/director liability and tort. The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that alleged patent infringement constitutes a matter of tort under Art. 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, giving the UPC jurisdiction under Article 32 UPCA, and that questions of director liability are matters of merit rather than jurisdiction.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH, and Belkin Limited
This case concerns an application by Koninklijke Philips N.V. for the imposition of a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) against the Belkin entities for non-compliance with an information order (Auskunft) issued in a main infringement decision dated September 13, 2024, regarding EP 2 867 997 B1. The Local Chamber Munich held that while the defendants were not required to provide the information in electronic form (since this was not specifically requested), they had provided incomplete information. A total coercive fine of €46,000 was imposed, and appeal was admitted.
Amycel LLC v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_499/2024)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Amycel LLC (proprietor of EP1993350) against an unnamed defendant located in Poland. The court addressed Amycel's application regarding the service of the Statement of Claim on the defendant, who had refused to accept delivery through multiple channels. The court ruled that the alternative methods of service employed by Amycel constituted good service under R. 275.2 RoP, deemed the Statement of Claim served on 25 November 2024, and set a three-month period for the defendant to file a Statement of Defense.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
Infringement action by Huawei against Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 relating to HE-SIG-B signaling in wireless local area networks. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed multiple defenses including exhaustion, FRAND, and IEEE LOA-based arguments, ultimately finding partial infringement and ordering injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and damages, while splitting costs 80/20 in favor of the defendants on the infringement claim.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied petitions to review institution decisions in three IPRs involving Stratasys's 3D‑printing patent, leaving the institution rulings intact.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a response defending the PTAB Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell. The owner contends the Director properly exercised discretion, that assignor estoppel does not apply, and that no right to institution exists.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. filed a fee transmittal to request Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00322 concerning Nutanix’s patent 11,010,336. The filing includes payment of $452 and asserts small and micro entity status.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell’s request for Director Review of the earlier decision that denied institution of the IPR against Nutanix’s patent. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
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.