Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6401–6500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The plaintiff Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought leave under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional submissions after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' (in addition to the previously accused 'Barryvox S2') with voice control functionality. The court denied the request, finding no basis to permit further submissions, noting that the plaintiff is already protected by confirmed provisional measures orders regarding the 'Barryvox S2' and retains remedies for any potential violations.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
France Telecom v.Union of India
France Telecom filed a Writ Petition challenging orders from the Patent Office which returned its patent application because the request for examination was made beyond the statutory 48-month limit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to an error by their Indian agent, constituting exceptional circumstances. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the impugned orders.
Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, is represented by Bardehle Pagenberg, with Access Advance LLC intervening as a supporting party. The defendants are fifteen HP entities across multiple European jurisdictions, represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, together with legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and a technically qualified judge.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc.,
The Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Belkin's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first instance order dated September 13, 2024, in a patent infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. regarding EP 2 867 997. The appeal involved both the Belkin corporate entities and individual managing directors. The court addressed the requirements for applications for suspensive effect, the standard for granting such effect, and the question of whether managing directors of an infringing company can be held liable as intermediaries under Article 63 EPGÜ.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against The Ergo Baby Carrier's patent on adjustable baby carriers. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion, specifically regarding the public accessibility of key prior art and demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
M/s Rspl Limited v.M/s Sunil Store (Proprietor & Owner) Trading as M/s Parth Store
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Sunil Store, alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights related to detergent products. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark GHARI/GHADI and passing off goods as belonging to the plaintiff.
M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Spdd Infra Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for a decree of Rs. 46,54,721/-, along with interest and permanent injunction, alleging misuse or infringement related to 80 patented moulds used in constructing Reinforced Earth (RE) Walls. The court examined the contractual relationship and the claims regarding outstanding payments.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that the respondents copied the entire content of his two Marathi language books, 'Hkkjrh; vFkZO;oLFkk' and 'Hkkjrh; jkT;?kVuk iz'kklu'. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of these allegedly duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal filed by the plaintiff, finding prima facie no merit in his case.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This procedural order concerns the joinder of a main infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Local Division Brussels. Cretes NV brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, while Hyler BV filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of two European patents (EP 3 993 602 and EP 4 284 152) held by Cretes NV. The court ordered the joint treatment of both proceedings for reasons of efficiency, legal certainty, and at the parties' request, and directed the Rapporteur Judge to take steps for the appointment of a technically qualified judge.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications petitions the PTAB to invalidate Adaptive Spectrum’s ’398 patent covering Wi‑Fi performance optimization, asserting that all 25 claims are obvious over prior art (Diener and Shaffer). The petition also argues against discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' request to institute IPR against Adaptive Spectrum regarding patent 10848398. The denial was based on the proximity of a related district court trial date and the perceived lack of strong merits.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against Essity Hygiene and Health AB's absorbent article patent (9308138). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art, including Nakazawa.
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe v.Appa Alias Hanmant Maroti Hatnure And Another
Ranjan Vasudeo Kolambe filed a civil suit alleging that defendants had infringed his copyrights by copying the content of two Marathi language books. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale and publication of these alleged duplicate works. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the commercial appeal, finding prima facie no merit in the plaintiff's case regarding the grant of temporary relief.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Munich addressed the procedural consequences following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 2 839 083. After the applicant withdrew its request following the oral hearing, the defendants argued they had a legitimate interest in a substantive decision due to defense costs and the imminent filing of a main action. The court held that no legitimate interest existed for a decision after withdrawal, as such a decision would have no res judicata effect and could not prevent new proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order concerning a patent infringement action related to European Patent EP4108782 owned by Harvard College. The plaintiffs (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the content of exhibit BP 34, consisting of a license agreement and related agreements containing highly sensitive business information, be treated as strictly confidential and accessible only to the defendant's legal representatives under an 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' regime. The plaintiffs argued that the information constitutes trade secrets under Article 58 and Article 24(1)(a) of the relevant agreement and EU Directive 2016/943, and noted that the same documents were subject to equivalent restrictions in parallel US proceedings before the District of Delaware.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.Respondent
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application to annul a decision of the European Patent Office regarding patent EP3516914. After the EPO rectified the contested decision, the Court closed the case pursuant to R. 91.2 RoP without ordering reimbursement of the court fee. Qualcomm subsequently sought full or partial reimbursement of the fee, arguing it prevailed in the proceeding and that the case was handled by a single judge before closure of the written procedure. The Court addressed the legal framework governing fee reimbursement under R. 91.2, R. 370.9, and R. 370.11 RoP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 patent succeeded. All 24 claims were found obvious over prior‑art references Hazelzet, Buchmann and, for certain claims, Kim, rendering the patent unpatentable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have entered settlement agreements with Woodbury Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,211,895. The motion relies on statutory authority allowing termination when parties agree to settle.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction of its remote desktop patent (U.S. 8,934,887). The petition argues the Board misread Figure 2, applied a conjunctive construction contrary to the specification, and ignored the Acting Director’s guidance. Amazon seeks reversal of the institution denial to allow the IPR to proceed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon seeks Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging B.S.D. Crown’s remote‑desktop patent. The petitioner contends the Board abused discretion by rejecting a preliminary reply on claim construction and misreading the patent’s scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on all 22 claims, based on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have settled their IPR dispute with Woodbury Wireless over U.S. Patent 10,211,895, filing the settlement as confidential and moving to terminate the proceeding.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Woodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T, and T‑Mobile jointly moved to terminate an IPR against Woodbury Wireless's patent 10,211,895. The PTAB granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreements and ending the proceeding before trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 8,489,837 patent in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all five asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art. The Board rejected the patent owner’s constructions and upheld Samsung’s obviousness arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its memory‑controller patent, arguing a faulty claim construction and insufficient particularity in Samsung’s grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung filed an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution of an IPR against Netlist over a memory‑module signaling patent. The brief argues the Board correctly construed the claim language and that the six grounds are obvious over Hazelzet. Netlist's challenges on waste of resources and new arguments are rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, and Kim references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully challenged Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent in an IPR, with the PTAB finding all 22 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 29 claims of Netlist’s ’623 memory‑module patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in a decision favoring Samsung’s SK Hynix petitioners.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs against Netlist’s memory‑module patents, keeping the institution rulings in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Netlist’s 11,880,319 patent covering memory‑module signaling. The petition relies on obviousness over Hazelzet combined with JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim references, and cites prior IPR estoppel. The Board has yet to rule.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet has filed a petition for inter partes review of Croga Innovations' U.S. Patent 10,601,780, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior‑art firewalls and virtualization systems. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the IPR.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Fortinet's attempt to invalidate Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent on network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Fortinet failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art, specifically Delco and Adams. This denial maintains the validity of key virtualization and firewall technology for Croga.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's IPR petition against B.S.D. Crown, Ltd. was denied after the Board maintained its finding that Petitioner lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The denial hinged on the Board adopting a conjunctive construction for key claim terms and finding no prior art disclosed all necessary components.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's attempt to invalidate B.S.D. Crown's '887 patent failed before the PTAB, with the Board denying the IPR petition. The denial hinged on Amazon failing to adequately address a key claim construction—the conjunctive nature of an element related to hardware action.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in an Amazon v. B.S.D. Crown IPR, remanding the case for further proceedings to resolve a disputed claim term.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully challenged a pharmaceutical patent (11260061) in an IPR, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board's decision hinged on extensive claim construction, particularly defining 'adsorbed onto a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution in this IPR, challenging all 20 claims of Netlist's patent (11880319) based on obviousness and anticipation. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over various combinations of prior art, including Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang, and Kim. This decision sets a strong precedent for challenging memory module initialization claims using industry standards and technical literature.
Levi Strauss & Co v.Ashok Woven Labels And Ors
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Co., filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks, specifically 'LEVI's' and 'LEVI'S PREMIUM'. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were manufacturing and selling counterfeit labels and goods using the protected marks. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.
Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. Pvt. Ltd., directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore and renew a trademark registration (No. 1150198). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the certificate, coupled with failure to serve mandatory renewal notices (O-3 Notice), prevented them from renewing their mark despite its initial validity period expiring. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for administrative lapses by the Registry, mandating the restoration and subsequent renewal of the trademark.
V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited v.Jayashree
In a dispute over the 'MANAPURAM' trademark, V.P. Nandakumar and Manappuram Finance Limited successfully reached a settlement with Jayashree before the Madras High Court. The parties agreed that the Petitioner has prior rights to the mark and that the Respondent will cancel her existing registration (No. 5109630) and transfer associated domain names within ten days. This compromise resolves the petition seeking removal of the infringing trademark entry.
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. v.Rehan Talat Khan and N.S. Sangolli
Kenny Ramanand and Balasubramaniam V. filed an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 10-01-2012. The dispute arose from a partnership in M/s Gambaz Foods International, involving allegations of breach of trust, financial misappropriation, and trademark disputes related to the brand 'Prawnto'.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College, v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order from the Local Division Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4108782 held by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed a request under Rule 333.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking review by the full panel of the reporting judge's order of August 15, 2024, which had rejected Vizgen's requests for production of documents. The disputed documents relate to non-technical objections, specifically allegations of abuse of rights (Rechtsmissbrauch), and were originally produced in US parallel proceedings.
Dehns v.Respondent
Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Section Munich) issued on 22 October 2024 APPLICANT Dehns, St Bride´s House, 10 Salisbury Square - EC47 8JD - London – GB, represented by: John Somerton, St Bride's House, 10 Salisbury Square - EC4Y 8
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over a Nokia wireless‑technology patent and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,571,833 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 9,571,833 after instituting the review. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 12 claims of Redstone Logics’ ’339 patent covering multi‑core processor voltage and clock management, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art references and urging the Board to institute the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 9,571,833 patent on HEVC motion‑vector prediction, arguing obviousness over Rusert/Zheng and Nakamura/WD4 and disputing the examiner’s allowance.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience America petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Infineon's 9,070,755 transistor patent, seeking cancellation of all 14 claims on the basis of anticipation and obviousness over Fujishima and related prior art. The petition argues that discretionary denial is improper and requests the Board find the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek, Inc. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Redstone Logics LLC's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The dispute centered on multi-core processor design and clock ratio controllers.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
The PTAB denied Innoscience America's petition to institute IPR against Infineon Technologies regarding patent 9070755. The Board found that factors favoring discretionary denial, such as overlap with a parallel ITC investigation, outweighed arguments for institution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Nokia's video encoding patent (9571833). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds, particularly those combining Rusert and Zheng.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an application by SharkNinja to admit new evidence (FBD 29) consisting of two annexes to a brief filed by Dyson's representative in a parallel US proceeding. SharkNinja argued the evidence was relevant to the appeal because it contained Dyson's interpretation of the patent feature regarding an elongate handle, which could undermine Dyson's contradictory denial of disclosure of the 'Power Source' feature in the present proceedings. Dyson opposed the application, arguing the evidence was not decisive and that the submission was culpably delayed.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T and other carriers have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of their IPR challenging a Korean-owned telecom patent. They argue the Board abused discretion by ignoring a Sotera stipulation and misapplying Fintiv factors.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC defends the Board’s denial of institution in IPR2025‑00036, arguing petitioners introduced new arguments and that the Board’s discretionary analysis under §314(a) was proper. The request for Director Review is contested and remains pending.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The USPTO denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00036, leaving the original denial in place.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Pegasus’s 5G slice‑aware handover patent, arguing obviousness over multiple 3GPP standards and that the prior art was not raised during prosecution.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR because the efficiency of ongoing parallel district court litigation outweighed the merits of the patent claims. The denial was based on the discretionary Fintiv factors, despite strong arguments from the petitioner regarding the lack of prior consideration for the grounds.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The claimants, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of source code of media players used under Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Safari browsers by certain defendants operating streaming services. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an information order against several AYLO entities and related companies regarding the encoding and coding scheme of video files available through their streaming services. The underlying main proceedings involve alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European countries, with the defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The rapporteur judge Böttger issued the order in the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Sling TV L.L.C., DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.Respondent
The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., sought an order under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure requiring defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Freesites Ltd, Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC to disclose information about which Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) they use or have used since August 28, 2019 for delivering video files through their streaming services, the locations of CDN servers, and how the video files are encoded and split. The underlying main proceedings concern alleged indirect patent infringement of European Patent EP 2 479 680 in multiple European territories, with defendants having filed counterclaims for invalidity. The order was issued by the reporting judge Böttger of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion asking the PTB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, separating them from the public patent file.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2025-00062. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding before any institution decision and keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Nokia of America Corp. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, Verizon and T‑Mobile have filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR targeting a Korean‑owned LTE patent. They argue the Board misapplied discretionary standards, ignored a Sotera stipulation, and failed to consider domestic economic impacts.
Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v.Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Google, and Multifold International have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement covenants confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement documents out of the public patent file.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,804,678 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the proceeding, and the parties cite public‑policy reasons for termination.