Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 5801–5900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, granting a permanent injunction against Ms. Aparna Mallick and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'KHADISAREE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark 'KHADI'. Furthermore, the Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name and awarded substantial damages and costs against the defendant due to their non-cooperation.
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.
Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerns a challenge by Sumi Agro against an order of the Local Division Munich that granted provisional measures against Sumi Agro in relation to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro submitted new facts and evidence in the appeal proceedings, and Syngenta objected to the admission of certain evidence while also seeking to introduce its own new evidence. The Court of Appeal disregarded Exhibit SA17 because Sumi Agro had previously submitted other pages from the same publication before the Court of First Instance, but admitted evidence relating to a possible new version of the contested embodiment (Kagura 2024) following the alleged infringer's statements about a product ingredient change.
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Respondent
This case concerned a review of an ex parte evidence preservation order issued by the Local Division in Copenhagen in relation to European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. Hybridgenerator ApS, the requesting party, sought confirmation of the order, while HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Infotech Holding ApS sought its revocation or modification. The court conducted a review hearing on November 28, 2024, and issued its ruling on December 19, 2024.
LAMA FRANCE v.Respondent
Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/12/2024 REQUÉRANT LAMA FRANCE 241 Rue du Companet 69140 - Rillieux-la-Pape - FR Représenté par Henri BOURGEOIS DEFENDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10
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.
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 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.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The claimants sought full revocation of the patent on grounds of added matter, lack of novelty over WO 2007/077255 A2 (Glejboel), and lack of inventive step starting from US 2002/0120236 (Diaz) or Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or US 6,516,950 (Robertson). The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Rules 19(1)(b) and 48 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction is not justified by public interest, though it may give rise to contractual liability.
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
Amycel LLC v.***
1 Intern gebruik The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/12/2024 regarding R.275 RoP APPLICANT Amycel LLC 260 Westgate Drive - 95076 - Watsonville, California - US Represented by H
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
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.
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.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.
Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Ambur Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
Dabur India Limited v.Ms Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd v.Rspl Helathcare P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Judge's order that had granted an ex parte injunction against Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, restraining it from using the trademark 'PRUEASE'. The court set aside this restrictive interim order. Instead, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the original application filed by the respondents seeking injunctive relief, allowing both parties a chance to present their case.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited (the Claimant in a revocation action regarding EP 2 794 928 B1) for the release of a security for legal costs previously imposed under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The security of EUR 300,000 had been ordered on 30 October 2023 due to concerns about the Claimant's financial position and its close ties to its then-parent company. Following a restructuring under Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code and the Claimant's transfer to Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., the Claimant sought release of the security on the grounds that the reasons for imposing it had ceased to exist.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute between Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG and Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding European Patent EP2145848. The proceedings originated from an ex parte evidence preservation order obtained by Oerlikon in June 2023 in connection with the ITMA trade fair held in Rho, Milan. Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation challenging the patent's validity on grounds of added matter, novelty, and inventive step, while Oerlikon introduced seven auxiliary requests. The order addresses procedural matters discussed at the interim conference, including settlement prospects, translation corrections, and the scope of the validity attack.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns enforcement proceedings following a main decision of September 13, 2024, in which the Local Chamber Munich found the Belkin defendants liable for patent infringement of EP 2 867 997 B1 and ordered them to provide information under Article 67 EPGÜ. The court addressed two key issues: whether the claimant's request for information in electronic form was sufficiently specific, and the nature of coercive penalties under Article 82 EPGÜ. The court held that electronic form must be specifically requested, and that coercive penalties serve both coercive and punitive functions.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB panel’s decision instituting inter partes review of eight claims of its 3‑D‑printer patent. The owner argues the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the Guidance Memorandum, warranting a denial of institution under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Thales v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Thales appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant patent for its application No. 8821/CHENP/2012, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on total non-application of mind, relying on copy-pasted reasoning and irrelevant prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The High Court quashed the impugned order, finding violations of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ori-Plast Limited v.Molecor Tecnologia S.L.
Ori-Plast Limited sought an injunction against Molecor Tecnologia S.L., which had terminated a license agreement related to the use of the Molecor PVC-O System. The petitioner feared that the withdrawal of remote assistance would cause irreparable loss, while the respondent argued for immediate termination based on alleged breaches of confidentiality and reverse engineering.
M/s.Sri Modern Weigh Systems v.Nipro MACHOI P. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed appeals concerning the alleged deceptive similarity between the trademarks 'MACHOI' and 'MAKHOI'. The court accepted an undertaking from the appellants not to use 'MACHOI' or any remotely similar name in the future. Furthermore, the opposing party was directed to immediately apply for the cancellation of their registered trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar. This judgment provides a practical resolution through undertakings and administrative action rather than a definitive finding on infringement.
Disys India Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to grant registration for the mark 'DISYS'. The appeal argued that the refusal, based solely on phonetic similarity to another mark ('DISYSO'), failed to consider evidence of the appellant's long-standing use and acquired distinctiveness. The court found the original order was a non-speaking order, necessitating a remand back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application on its merits.
Super Smelters Ltd. v.Rekha Tayal &Anr.
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Super Smelters Ltd., a leading manufacturer of TMT Bars, in its application to rectify a trademark registration. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively identical and phonetically similar to the petitioner's established 'SUPER SHAKTI' brand. Crucially, the court noted a glaring error by the registrar who failed to consider the petitioner's prior registrations during the examination process. Consequently, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the impugned registration, affirming the petitioner's strong prima facie case and preventing consumer confusion.
Innovative Health Care v.Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Application filed by Innovative Health Care seeking to restrain Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. from using a deceptively similar trademark for medicinal preparations. The court decided to close the current application while granting the applicant full liberty to raise all its contentions in the main suit. This procedural step moves the dispute forward into the substantive litigation phase.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 13/12/2024 APPLICANT in App_61630/2024 – RESPONDENT in App_62436/2024 ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas – US Represented by Lionel Martin RESPOND
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. submitted an email to the PTAB Director requesting a rehearing after the Director Review denied institution of its IPR against Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB denied Tessell, Inc.'s petition for rehearing of the Director Review order that had vacated the institution of an IPR against Nutanix, Inc.'s patent 11,860,818. The decision leaves the prior order in place and no claims were examined.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-00298. The petitioner is limited to a five‑page response filed within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm’s request for Director Review of a discretionary denial of institution was rejected. The Board found Arm lacked a concrete interest and the prior art cited was cumulative, supporting the denial.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,984,228 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to MediaTek, leaving the proceeding active only for Arm Ltd.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that blocked an IPR on its multicore processor patent (U.S. 8,984,228). The petition cites the settlement of related litigation and prior Board findings that identical claims were invalid over the Sinharoy reference.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The Board is asked to restrict access to the agreement to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd petitions the PTAB Director to vacate a discretionary denial and institute an IPR on its multicore processor patent after the related Texas lawsuit was settled and dismissed.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over four patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑36 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,860,818, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior‑art database UI disclosures. The petition argues that the examiner never considered the cited references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Inpria’s ’048 patent covering EUV photoresist deposition. The petition relies on obviousness and anticipation grounds over Meyers, Weidman, Berney, and Molloy, and raises a new‑matter issue. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The Director denied institution of an IPR in the Tessell v. Nutanix case, citing administrative inefficiency because the petitioner includes nearly all inventors of the challenged patent.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patent (11554005) on obviousness grounds. The PTAB instituted the IPR, requiring further review of claims 1-15 based on prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory because the patent owner had successfully filed a statutory disclaimer covering all challenged claims related to 3D memory devices.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants unlawfully manufactured, sold, and exported the infringing product 'Tofaxen', which is a generic version of their patented drug Tofacitinib (Xeljanz®). The court found that the defendants collectively infringed the suit patents while they were valid and subsisting. However, since the patents had expired during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs did not press for permanent injunction but secured a decree in terms of prayer clause 57(e).
Candico (I) Limited v.T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And Sons
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous order that had refused the registration of the mark 'JUMBO GUMBO' due to an opposition. The court found that the objection raised by the opponent did not survive because their prior trademark application for 'JUMBO' had been treated as abandoned years earlier. Given the changed circumstances and the opponent's failure to contest the appeal, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration of 'JUMBO GUMBO'.
Surindar Pal Singh v.Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.
Puma Se v.Surender Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Puma Se's petition seeking cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark, 'P11MA,' registered by Surender Singh in Class 25. The court found that the respondent had slavishly copied the petitioner's established and well-known mark, PUMA, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Furthermore, the respondent voluntarily agreed not to contest the petition, solidifying the decision for removal.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 403793, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by a family exigency involving its attorney and that the restoration application was filed within the prescribed period. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.