Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7301–7400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Ulink Agritech Private Ltd. v.Sml Limited & Others
The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar Anr.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16 August 2024 APPLICANT IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON represented by Mr. Wim Maas Eelco Bergsma Manuel Durães Rocha DEFENDANTS IN PRELIM
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Nnova And Company v.Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition following a settlement between Nnova And Company and Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies. The court cancelled the registered trademark 'GLOWNOWO' (No. 3830607) in Class-03, which was deemed deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark NOVA. In exchange, the respondent agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks and committed to using a specific label format for 'Glownow', ensuring distinctiveness from the original brand.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber in Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking the production of various documents from the plaintiffs, including a 2019 license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, several emails disclosed in parallel US discovery proceedings, and documents referenced in a US hearing before Judge Kennelly. The order addresses the procedural framework for these document production requests in connection with the parallel US litigation.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an Initial Petition challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner targets multiple claim subsets using Trousset, Durbin, and Kariathungal as evidence of obviousness.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S et al. filed an opening petition challenging Medit Corporation's patent (7912257) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed real-time 3D dental scanning method is predictable when combining prior art disclosures from Kopelman and Quadling.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals for infringing its patent IN 297581, which covers the compound Osimertinib. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further hearing.
Baynee Industries v.Rajiv Rosha
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking substantial damages against the defendant, alleging wrongful interference with business due to the defendant's patented product. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing lack of cause of action and correlation between the patent and the alleged business loss. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaint, when read as a whole, disclosed sufficient cause of action.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Plc
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beacon Pharmaceuticals and others for infringing its patent (IN 297581) covering the compound Osimertinib. The court, after considering the prima facie case, granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering the patented compound in any form.
Neela Film Productions Private Limited v.Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in favor of Neela Film Productions Private Limited (Plaintiff) in its copyright and trademark infringement suit against Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors. (Defendants). The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowed the plaintiff to serve advance copies on a specific defendant despite lack of contact details, and directed that the plaint be formally registered as a commercial suit. These orders pave the way for the substantive trial concerning the alleged infringement of the popular show 'Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.Mr Jayesh Dilip Mehta & Anr.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed multiple applications seeking an injunction against Mr. Jayesh Dilip Mehta and others, alleging that the respondents were communicating with e-commerce platforms to falsely claim infringement of their trademark 'MYFITNESS'. The petitioner argues that the respondents' actions are causing product delisting on major online marketplaces. While the respondent opposes the maintainability of the applications, citing different sections of the Trade Marks Act, the court has ordered notice and set a date for further arguments.
Lv Bhavani Sankar v.Gemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
The Claimant, Network System Technologies LLC, sued four Defendants for patent infringement regarding European patent EP 1 552 669. By letter dated 1 July 2024, the Claimant declared a partial withdrawal of the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) following a settlement. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 265 RoP applies to partial subjective withdrawals of action, permitted the withdrawal with the consent of Defendants 1 and 2, and ordered that each party bear its own costs as agreed.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World challenges the USPTO’s denial of its IPR on a disposable vaporizer patent, arguing material error and improper use of the Fintiv memo. The petitioner seeks institution of the review.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World and SV3 seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings’ ‘202 patent covering disposable vaporizer devices. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework and improperly limited its review to two pages of the petition.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,160,466. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra filed a joint request to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to dismiss the pending IPR. The motion cites statutory confidentiality protections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus filed a joint request to have their IPR settlement materials treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The motion seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions PTAB to invalidate RAI Strategic's 2024 electronic‑cigarette patent, arguing lack of written description and obviousness over Takeuchi, Kim, Pienemann and Susa. The petition seeks institution and opposes discretionary denial.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,925,202 covering an electrically‑powered vaping article, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over Takeuchi, Pienemann, Kim and Susa references and lack written‑description support.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of Croga Innovations’ VoIP codec‑switching patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging K. Mizra LLC's patent covering digital signal processing and calibration methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a combination of multiple prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review in an IPR case (IPR2024-01280), vacating the denial of institution. The proceeding is remanded for parties to clarify arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and parallel ITC litigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Ecto World's petition to institute IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings regarding a tobacco-containing smoking article, citing the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error despite using previously presented prior art.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
Natco Pharma Ltd. v.M/s. Schering Corporation
Natco Pharma Ltd filed an Original Petition (Patents) seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No.202128 against M/s. Schering Corporation and the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The court observed that the term of the patent had expired on 06.10.2018, rendering the petition infructuous.
Ashokbhai Manjibhai Sankharava trading as M/s. Unolex Aquatech v.M/S. Trishul Pump
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commercial Court rejecting applications seeking exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff had filed four suits for patent infringement (No. 388576) but failed to demonstrate a genuine need for urgent interim relief.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
Akzo Nobel Coatings International B. v.Berger Paints India Limited and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the appeal concerning the trademark 'POLYDUR'. The court noted that Respondent No. 1 had submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of the trademark application (No. 1949642). Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, to process and pass the appropriate orders for the complete withdrawal of the mark within three weeks.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of M/S Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute between Vijay Baweja and Ajay Baweja to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner sought rectification of their 'AIRGOLD' trademark and cancellation of the respondent's similar mark, 'AIR GOLD (DEVICE)', both registered in Class 12. This move indicates the court is encouraging parties to resolve complex IP conflicts through alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with a full trial.
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a member of the public, for access to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement case under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying infringement action was brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, which relates to a color and light mixing collecting optic for outdoor LED variable traffic signs. The order establishes the legal framework for balancing public access interests against the protection of confidential information, personal data, and the integrity of the proceedings.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed preliminary issues in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court dealt with the Defendants' request to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence, which was based on the Claimant's erroneous submission of the AVC standard as Exhibit BP 6 instead of the intended HEVC standard. The order also addressed questions regarding the authority of representatives acting before the court and the proper filing of requests.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Kanchan Singh
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their trademark 'KENT' and registered design no. 312406 related to water purifiers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are selling products that are identical or deceptively similar to their registered designs.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court allowed exemption and set notice, granting both parties time to file their respective written synopses or rejoinders.