Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10101–10200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
Arthrogen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Arthrogen Gmbh appealed the rejection of its Indian patent application for a method involving gold particle enrichment of blood serum. The Patent Office had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing it constituted a 'method of treatment.' Arthrogen successfully argued that the claims were directed towards a novel 'method of producing' a substance, not a direct method of treating humans. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited v.3Sk Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner invoked Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, to seek the revocation of Indian Patent 307627. The court granted exemption and issued notice to all respondents, directing them to file their replies within specified timelines.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr. v.Diamond Autos
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of 'HERO' trademarks, Hero Investcorp Private Limited sought various interim reliefs against Diamond Autos. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service due to urgency. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises in Ludhiana to verify the alleged counterfeit products, setting the stage for further proceedings on the injunction application.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited appealed the rejection of its application to rectify the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. The core dispute revolves around whether Reckitt & Colman's use of a similar mark, specifically 'DRAIN XPERT POWDER', constitutes infringement or grounds for rectification. The appellant argues that the slight variation in spelling and presentation is deceitful and confusingly similar to their registered trademark. The court has listed the matter for further hearing to consider these complex arguments regarding similarity and deceptive intent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to initiate trademark rectification proceedings against Alkem Laboratories. The core issue was challenging the validity of the Defendant's registered mark, ALSITA, in Class 5. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing, allowing the parties time to file their respective responses.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. v.Dhruvil Damajibhai Zadafiya As D D Fashion & Anr.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of a trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner argued that their internationally registered and long-standing wordmark, 'NUTRAFOL,' relates to over-the-counter hair growth products. The court accepted the petition and directed the issuance of notice to the respondents, setting the stage for further litigation regarding the validity and use of the mark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.Shubhom Juneja
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco’s petition argues that the Board correctly interpreted the term “memory circuit” to include multiple components, rejecting Lionra’s claim of procedural error. The Director Review Request is urged to be denied.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00734, finding the Board's claim‑construction error harmless. The patent owned by Lionra Technologies remains in force.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order deeming abandonment of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539) under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner claims they received no information regarding the response deadline for the first examination report and that the failure was due to lack of communication from the Second Patent Agent (SPA).
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Paratek Pharmaceuticals challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a tetracycline compound. The High Court found the rejection order bad in law because it failed to consider the appellant's responses and submissions, and because it introduced new objections (claims 9-24) not raised during the hearing notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
The IPR concerning patent 8,760,454 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. Realtek and ATI filed a joint motion to end the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries and ATI Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2024-00366 concerning U.S. Patent 8,760,454. The motion indicates a settlement and seeks to end the proceeding.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The IPR concerning Ridge Wallet's patent 10,791,808 was terminated after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement kept separate from the patent file.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Ibrum Technologies v.The Controller of Patents
Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple appeals filed by The State of Jharkhand against various respondents. These appeals were decided based on the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous precedents. The court provided further clarifications and directions while settling these complex patent-related disputes.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) on January 31, 2024. The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling addresses various disputes arising under patent law within the state.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of a series of interconnected Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.). The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling provides clarity and specific directions across multiple patent disputes involving various parties, thereby concluding the appellate proceedings.
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v.President And Fellows Of Harvard College
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute challenged an arbitral award that directed the transfer of its domain name, <kashmirharvard.edu.in>, to President and Fellows of Harvard College. The dispute arose from a complaint filed under the INDRP alleging trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity between the domain name and the globally recognized 'HARVARD' mark. The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, finding that the domain was identical to the trademark and caused confusion, thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.
Aryan Educational Society v.C.D. Goyal Foundation
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Aryan Educational Society against C.D. Goyal Foundation. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for an ad-interim injunction notice, noting that the defendant was allegedly using a similar mark ('The Aryan School') in Haryana despite the plaintiff holding a registered trademark. Furthermore, the court formally registered the suit and granted various procedural exemptions to facilitate the ongoing litigation.
Ajay Goyal v.Anil Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement case filed by Ajay Goyal against Anil Verma & Anr. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction, recognizing claims of deceptive similarity between 'SUFIYANA' and 'SUFIYAMA', alongside copying of trade dress and artistic work. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing products and materials, ensuring the continuation of the suit while addressing urgent concerns regarding trademark infringement.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Mohan Kumar Kotana
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the ongoing trademark dispute between Taco Bell Corp. and Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises. The court granted certain procedural exemptions while directing parties to adhere strictly to commercial courts rules regarding document submission. Crucially, the main petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing mark (Registration No. 3628356) was advanced, with notice issued to the respondents to file their response within four weeks.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites filed Director Review requests challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for eight IPRs against DISH Technologies. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and erred on material facts. The review seeks reversal of the denial.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of its petition. The petition relies on the strong prior art reference WO 02/49343 A1 (“Leaning”).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,852 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
Reolink Innovation Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Patent No. 847842 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition presented multiple combinations of prior art, including Lorex Guide/Kim and Throughtek-2012/Lorex Video, arguing the claimed P2P connection methods were predictable.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB has instituted IPR proceedings against Immersion Corporation's patent, finding that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Rosenberg and Brock. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding how these older systems disclose modulated haptic effects based on extra-sensory input. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of the technical scope of haptic feedback in handheld devices.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged STA Group's patent (US 9319852) in an IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Choksi and Shaffer1. The petitioner asserts that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine elements from the cited prior art to achieve the claimed interoperability functionality. This initial petition sets up a detailed technical dispute regarding dynamic proxy insertion and device adherence determination.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against 10x Genomics, Inc., challenging numerous claims of patent 11542554. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing a failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in its prior art search and unfavorable General Plastic factors. The Board found that the Petitioner could not have reasonably avoided finding highly relevant references, leading to the denial of institution for all 16 claims at issue.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prior art search and tactical delays. The Board relied on General Plastic factors, finding the overlap between petitions was significant and Petitioner failed to justify its timing or discovery efforts regarding new references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for multiple claims related to peer-to-peer connection establishment. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as the Lorex Guide and Kim, taught all limitations of several claimed features. This outcome significantly advances the challenge against the patent's validity in this technology area.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent (9,116,546), asserting that the haptic feedback claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on Claim 1 based on Rosenberg.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' IPR against STA Group, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges over prior art Choksi.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving unpatentability. The claims related to graphical user interfaces (GUI) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the petition challenging patent 9003315, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate obviousness against the claims. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (LiTL LLC), concluding that prior art combinations did not teach the specific content filtering required by the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's biometric fraud detection patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone and Hoyos. This decision sets the stage for a trial focusing on how existing financial security methods could be combined to achieve the claimed results.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546 unpatentable. The decision relied on the Petitioner's uncontested arguments that prior art references (Rosenberg and Brock) anticipated or rendered obvious the patent claims.
Cisco Systems Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found that a large group of claims (15) were unpatentable over the prior art reference Gai under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board relied on Petitioner's '1B' theory, which successfully demonstrated obviousness by showing Gai disclosed all limitations of the claimed network topology and dummy traffic function. Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 survived the challenge.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The Plaintiffs are seeking to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing their Indian Patents related to construction elements. The Defendant is accused of trading in products that are copies of the Plaintiffs' patents.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Lalit Kumar Jaggia
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit against Lalit Kumar Jaggia seeking permanent injunctions due to the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, including 'LEVI'S', 'Two Horse Logo', and associated designs, as well as copyright violation in its labels. The court found the defendant guilty of flagrant infringement and decreed the suit for permanent injunction along with awarding punitive damages.
Rajesh Sultania And Anr. v.Arun Kumar Murarka
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajesh Sultania and Anr. which challenged the rejection of a plaint in an infringement suit brought by Arun Kumar Murarka. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent lacked standing to sue for trademark infringement because he was not the registered proprietor of 'YEH KHILA YEH KHILA.' However, the Court found that the comprehensive nature of the Respondent's claim—which included both copyright and trademark infringement—disclosed a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the court noted an assignment deed supporting the Respondent's ownership claims, concluding that the preliminary rejection of the plaint was correct.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.