Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8101–8200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have agreed to settle their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within 45 days, pausing all court deadlines.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate and Harman have reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,659,315 covering smart‑headphone technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPRs covering Nokia’s patent 8,918,741. The Board granted the motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,918,741 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under the settlement confidentiality provisions.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully challenged Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent, arguing the claims were obvious over prior art references like Niikawa and Watanabe-JP. The Board agreed to institute review, resulting in the cancellation of several key claims related to in-camera image processing.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenged Nokia's patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,689,939) before the PTAB, arguing that claims related to mobile device user interfaces are obvious under Section 103. The challenger asserts that combining prior art teachings regarding limited access and UI enhancements results in predictable features.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against Maxeon Solar's solar cell patent (11,251,315), asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining a back-contact structure with decades of prior art regarding doping concentrations and metal impurities renders the invention predictable. This initial petition focuses on establishing clear grounds for unpatentability in photovoltaic technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Patent No. 11659315 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103) related to active noise reduction and audio assistant devices. The petition asserts that various combinations of prior art references render multiple claims invalid.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for smaXtec Inc. against ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC after finding sufficient evidence of unpatentability in several claims. The Board specifically found that Claim 5 was anticipated by Harvey and determined there was a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected citing lack of inventive step and being a mere admixture. The appellant argued that the crucial feature—the formation of a double population structure—was ignored by the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses in the rejection order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Fincraft Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Fincraft Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to file a suit concerning copyright infringement related to the film 'Natyasamrat-Asa Nat hone Nahin.' The petitioner argued that while most transactions occurred in Mumbai, some agreements were executed in Hyderabad, potentially challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v.M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner, an API manufacturer, claimed that the respondents were infringing their patents (IN370845 and IN434424) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for granting the injunction.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan and Foras Technologies filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the IPR, effectively ending the dispute.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan, and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to withdraw the IPR petition for U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes and requesting termination of the proceeding.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted Qualcomm’s joinder request and instituted inter partes review of Network System Technologies’ NoC patent, covering claims 2,6,9‑16.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc., Brødrene Hartmann A/S, and The Happy Group Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01037 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent owner Maurice J.P. Tabone. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its discretionary authority.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group settled their IPR dispute with inventor Maurice Tabone over Patent 10,287,070. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
Court decision.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
Qualcomm challenged Network System Technologies' patent claims related to resource management in Network on Chip (NoC) technology. The petitioner asserts that the claimed functionality is obvious over prior art references by combining known networking techniques.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. 10,287,070 regarding its container design features. Petitioners assert that the claimed elements are obvious over prior art references Beese and King in the food packaging field.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has filed a Petition challenging claims related to portrait mode image processing, asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner argues that combining existing techniques like background blurring with sharpness enhancement renders the patented invention obvious.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of patent 7454056, which covers color balance correction and face detection technologies. The Petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Yano, Schroder, Kuwata, and Nakamura. This challenge targets core image processing methods used in digital imaging.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has challenged a patent covering image enhancement and object detection methods before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining known face detection techniques with existing image processing apparatuses renders all 12 claimed methods unpatentable under Section 103. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation involving Google LLC in district court.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase in this IPR, securing institution on several claims related to color balance correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Claim 1 based on combinations of prior art references (Yano and Schröder).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that a non-appealed R.262A RoP order by the Court of First Instance restricting access to certain information continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that no new protective order is necessary when the same already-protected information is contained in documents lodged in the appeal. The Court accordingly found Curio's request for a new protective order to be superfluous.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Google Ireland Ltd Gordon House, Barrow Street 4
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.