Apple Inc. litigation

Seoul Semiconductor Obtains Permanent Injunction against Philips Displays and Feit Light Bulbs

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, September 15, 2020

There was no dispute in the permanent injunction order that the accused products infringed Seoul's patents.

Key Points: 
  • There was no dispute in the permanent injunction order that the accused products infringed Seoul's patents.
  • Seoul previously obtained another permanent injunction judgment against the sales of a Philips brand LED TV in a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Fry's Electronics.
  • This permanent injunction also prohibits the sale of certain filament LED bulbs of Feit Electronics.
  • Seoul Semiconductor is the world's second-largest global LED manufacturer, a ranking excluding the captive market, and has more than 14,000 patents.

McKool Smith Secures $506 Million Patent Infringement Verdict For PanOptis Against Apple

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, August 12, 2020

NEW YORK, Aug. 12, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- McKool Smith , along with Irell & Manella LLP, secured a $506,200,000 patent infringement verdict on behalf of Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC, Unwired Planet International Limited, and PanOptis Patent Management (collectively, " PanOptis ") against Apple, Inc .

Key Points: 
  • NEW YORK, Aug. 12, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- McKool Smith , along with Irell & Manella LLP, secured a $506,200,000 patent infringement verdict on behalf of Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, Unwired Planet, LLC, Unwired Planet International Limited, and PanOptis Patent Management (collectively, " PanOptis ") against Apple, Inc .
  • Jurors awarded PanOptis $506 million in damages finding that Apple willfully infringed five PanOptis patents, including U.S. Patent Nos.
  • "As we maintained throughout trial, PanOptis made good faith efforts to reach a licensing agreement for Apple to use their valuable intellectual property.
  • Apple failed to negotiate in good faith, declined the licensing opportunity, and infringed PanOptis' patents," said McKool Smith principal Steve Pollinger , lead trial counsel for PanOptis.

Paragon Films Brings Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Berry

Retrieved on: 
Friday, June 26, 2020

Paragon Films, Inc., a leading stretch film manufacturer in North America, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Berry Global, Inc. in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.

Key Points: 
  • Paragon Films, Inc., a leading stretch film manufacturer in North America, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Berry Global, Inc. in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
  • The lawsuit alleges that Berrys Fortitude products directly infringe four U.S. patents protecting Paragon Films Torque hand film products.
  • The lawsuit seeks to recover damages as well as an injunction to prevent Berry from continued acts of infringement.
  • Paragon Films has been an industry leader for over 30 years and has operations in Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Washington.

Personal Genomics, Inc. Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. in China

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, May 20, 2020

HSINCHU, Taiwan, May 20, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. ("PGI"), today announced that it has filed a patent infringement complaint in the Wuhan People's Court in China against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PacBio").

Key Points: 
  • HSINCHU, Taiwan, May 20, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. ("PGI"), today announced that it has filed a patent infringement complaint in the Wuhan People's Court in China against Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. ("PacBio").
  • The complaint asserts that PacBio's Sequel and Sequel II, as well as related commercialization activities by PacBio, its agents and certified service providers, infringe one or more claims of China patent No.
  • PGI previously filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against PacBio on September 26, 2019 alleging patent infringement of US patent No.
  • "In order to protect our intellectual property from infringement, we are taking a step further in legal action against PacBio in China today.

A Final Victory for Sisvel Before the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) In the Sisvel vs. Haier Case

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, May 7, 2020

On May 5 the German Federal Supreme Court heard the arguments in the case between Sisvel and Haier regarding Sisvels request for injunctive relief for infringement of cellular standard essential patents (SEPs) owned by Sisvel.

Key Points: 
  • On May 5 the German Federal Supreme Court heard the arguments in the case between Sisvel and Haier regarding Sisvels request for injunctive relief for infringement of cellular standard essential patents (SEPs) owned by Sisvel.
  • Prior to this verdict, on March 10, 2020 the BGH had already given final confirmation that Sisvels EP 885 should be considered valid.
  • The nullity actions had been filed by Haier and ZTE.
  • Sisvel welcomes the results we have obtained in the recent weeks before the highest court for patent matters in Germany.

Commvault Initiates Patent Infringement Litigation Against Cohesity and Rubrik

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, April 21, 2020

Commvault has invested more than $1 billion in research and development, yielding nearly 900 patents worldwide, with 350 patent applications pending.

Key Points: 
  • Commvault has invested more than $1 billion in research and development, yielding nearly 900 patents worldwide, with 350 patent applications pending.
  • Commvault is pursuing a judgment finding that Rubrik and Cohesity have infringed and are infringing its United States patents and seeks injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages for past and ongoing infringement.
  • "Commvault is not a litigious company but given this clear patent infringement by Cohesity and Rubrik, we have a responsibility to file these lawsuits we must stand up for our innovation and intellectual property," said Commvault Vice President and General Counsel Warren Mondschein.
  • The lawsuit alleges that Cohesity has infringed and continues to infringe at least one claim of U.S. Patent Nos.

Natera Asserts Three New Oncology Patents Against ArcherDX

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, April 15, 2020

The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently awarded Natera patents 10,557,172; 10,590,482; and 10,597,708, which cover methods for amplifying and sequencing nucleic acids.

Key Points: 
  • The United States Patent and Trademark Office recently awarded Natera patents 10,557,172; 10,590,482; and 10,597,708, which cover methods for amplifying and sequencing nucleic acids.
  • Natera's complaint alleges that ArcherDX infringes these patents by selling, manufacturing, and/or using various oncology products, including those in the personalized liquid biopsy space.
  • The three new patents expand the scope of Natera's ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against ArcherDX, originally filed on January 27, 2020.
  • Natera has a substantial patent estate covering personalized monitoring and molecular residual disease (MRD) testing in oncology using its patented multiplex PCR technology, and is seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Lipocine Announces Outcome of Markman Hearing in Patent Infringement Suit Against Clarus

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, March 26, 2020

The purpose of a Markman Hearing is to determine the precise meaning of words from patent claims that are in dispute in a patent infringement lawsuit.

Key Points: 
  • The purpose of a Markman Hearing is to determine the precise meaning of words from patent claims that are in dispute in a patent infringement lawsuit.
  • No ultimate determination of infringement or validity of the patents has been determined at this point.
  • The Markman Hearing Order, issued by the United States District Court of Delaware, has been posted on Lipocine's website at: https://ir.lipocine.com/presentations .
  • Lipocine has a pending suit against Clarus in the United States District Court of Delaware alleging that Clarus's JATENZO product infringes Lipocine's U.S. patents: 9,034,858; 9,205,057; 9,480,690; and 9,757,390.

Statement on Jury Verdict in Delaware Trial Against Oxford Nanopore Technologies

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, March 18, 2020

Although the jury sided with Pacific Biosciences in finding Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. guilty of infringing three of Pacific Biosciences patents, U.S. Patent Nos.

Key Points: 
  • Although the jury sided with Pacific Biosciences in finding Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. guilty of infringing three of Pacific Biosciences patents, U.S. Patent Nos.
  • The jury declined to find valid or infringed U.S. Patent No.
  • We are disappointed with todays verdict, which appears to be internally inconsistent regarding the validity of our patents, said Dr. Michael W. Hunkapiller, President and Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Biosciences.
  • Pacific Biosciences intends to file post-trial motions with the District Court, seeking to overturn these aspects of the jury verdict and also requesting a new trial if warranted.

Jubilant Receives Favorable Rulings from the U.S. Patent Office Invalidating Bracco Rubidium-Infusion-System Patents

Retrieved on: 
Monday, February 17, 2020

YARDLEY, Pa., Feb. 17, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On February 7, 2020, Jubilant DraxImage Inc., and certain of its affiliates (Jubilant) were informed by the U.S. Patent Office that it agreed with Jubilants arguments that two rubidium-infusion-system patents owned by Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., (Bracco) are invalid.

Key Points: 
  • YARDLEY, Pa., Feb. 17, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- On February 7, 2020, Jubilant DraxImage Inc., and certain of its affiliates (Jubilant) were informed by the U.S. Patent Office that it agreed with Jubilants arguments that two rubidium-infusion-system patents owned by Bracco Diagnostics, Inc., (Bracco) are invalid.
  • Bracco had alleged that Jubilants RUBY-FILL Generator and RUBY Rubidium Elution System were infringing the two patents in a lawsuit filed in 2018, prompting Jubilant to challenge the validity of the two patents in three Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the U.S. Patent Office.
  • As a result of these favorable rulings, the U.S. Patent Office is expected to cancel all challenged claims of the two Bracco patents.
  • This favorable decision from the U.S. Patent Office comes on the heels of another favorable ruling that Jubilant received in December 2019 from the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), which found three other Bracco patents directed to rubidium infusion systems invalid.