Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8301–8400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al. v.Sandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
A challenger has filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,791,808, owned by The Ridge Wallet LLC. The petitioner asserts that the patent's compact wallet structure and auxiliary clip mechanism are obvious combinations of existing prior art references. This challenge targets all 24 claims based on Section 103 (obviousness).
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Company, LLC v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Mountain Voyage's IPR petition against The Ridge Wallet was denied by the PTAB because it was filed more than one year after receiving a district court infringement complaint, rendering the attempt to join related proceedings moot.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents. The Defendants sought to compel the Plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) to disclose four Board of Directors resolutions from entities within the Avago corporate group relating to the authorization of the patent assignment and the granting of powers of attorney. The Defendants raised doubts about the validity of the powers of attorney (Anlagen K29 and K30) and whether the underlying corporate authorizations had been properly granted.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European patent EP2145848. The dispute originated from an order for preservation of evidence obtained ex parte following Bhagat's exhibition at the ITMA fair in Milan in June 2023. The defendant denied any knowledge of the patent, denied having commercialized infringing products in the patent-protected territory, and reiterated its commitment not to enter the patent-covered market, while the parties engaged in advanced settlement negotiations. The order addresses procedural matters including the correction of the defendant's name in the introductory act and the evaluation of litigation costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of corporate documents from the plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited). The defendants sought the disclosure of Board of Directors resolutions of Avago group entities referenced in the power of attorney documents (Annexes K29 and K30), arguing doubts existed regarding the validity of the powers of attorney and the authorization for the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, contending that the defendants' concerns had shifted from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making, and that there were no doubts that such decision-making had occurred.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review challenging a PTAB denial of institution for its IPR against Sfara’s vehicle‑identification patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) by demanding a means‑plus‑function construction that the claims lack. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00952 and IPR2024-00966, keeping the institution decisions denied. The petitioner's appeal was rejected without substantive reconsideration.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied BOE Technology Group’s request for rehearing of its denied institution of an IPR on claims 7‑13 and 15‑20 of U.S. Patent 9,557,606. The Board held that the petitioner failed to define “wiring line” and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging MHL Custom, Inc.'s hydrofoil watercraft patent (9359044) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as passive static stability and specific airfoil designs, are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,557,606 related to LCD manufacturing methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). BOE argues that combinations of prior art references render the patented technology predictable.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Sfara, Inc.'s patent on vehicle identification technology. The core argument asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over prior art references Fong and Abramson. Petitioner contends that combining sensor signature detection with comparison methods was known in the field.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
The PTAB denied an Inter Partes Review petition against MHL Custom's patent (9586659) filed by Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence. The denial was based on the petition being time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as Petitioner had already lost related litigation using the same prior art.
Shenzhen Waydoo Intelligence Technology Co., Ltd. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Patent 9,359,044 B2, finding the petition time-barred. The denial followed the rejection of a motion to join because the petitioner had already challenged the patent's validity in district court.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited. The denial was based on Petitioner's failure to provide sufficient evidence for grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Fujikawa, Kang, and Ikeguchi.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Front Line Medical Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Prytime’s U.S. Patent 11,857,737 covering low‑profile occlusion balloon catheters. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and challenges discretionary denial.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges against all ten claims. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for 'proximal hub' and 'flow valve,' finding they could be separate or sub-elements, which supported the grounds of obviousness over various prior art combinations.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Juniper Networks' attempt to challenge Orckit's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited General Plastic factors, finding that the claims were materially similar to those previously reviewed and Petitioner had prior knowledge of the asserted prior art.
Front Line Medical Technologies Inc. v.Prytime Medical Devices, Inc.
Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all ten challenged claims related to vascular occlusion catheters are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board relied heavily on various combinations of prior art references, primarily under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness).
Prabhu Soap Works v.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Fives Combustion Systems P Ltd v.Vadodara-I
The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute between Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (plaintiff) and Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (defendants). The defendants filed a further request under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to produce internal corporate Board of Directors resolutions relating to the authorization of powers of attorney and the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were improperly shifting focus from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making. The text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the final ruling.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Tech v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants include Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., various Xiaomi Technology subsidiaries across Europe, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur, addressing preliminary procedural requests in the infringement proceedings.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon's attempt to invalidate Nokia's video compression patent (8204134) failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that Amazon could not prove obviousness over prior art like Yagasaki.
Dr. Nidhi Gulati v.M/s. Repro Books Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Repro Books Limited (and Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) for the unauthorized reproduction and sale of her copyrighted Ph.D thesis, "Construction of Childhood in Cinema," as a book. The court found that Defendant No. 1 infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff by selling a word-for-word copy without permission or royalty.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities in connection with the 'Connected Ball Technology' used at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The court denied the application, finding that the claimant had waited almost three months after learning of the alleged infringement without taking significant steps to investigate or obtain supporting documents, thereby failing to demonstrate the urgency required for a preliminary injunction.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer’s corn‑seed patent, arguing that the PTAB’s denial of institution improperly rewards secrecy of parent lines. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision and prevent a precedent that could undermine disclosure in plant‑breeding patents.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
The PTAB denied Databricks' request for Director Review of the earlier decision that refused to institute its IPR against R2 Solutions' data‑processing patent. The Director recused herself, and the Deputy Under Secretary upheld the denial.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the PGR petition filed by Inari Agriculture against Pioneer Hi-Bred, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success. The Board specifically rejected obviousness claims because they relied on phenotypic comparisons while ignoring critical genotypic differences in maize breeding technology.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8190610) regarding MapReduce data grouping. The PTAB denied institution because Petitioner relied on speculative hindsight rather than demonstrating a clear motivation from prior art references like Pike and Chowdhuri.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully petitioned the PTAB against Danco, Inc., leading to the institution of trial on all 14 claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the patent's features were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using various prior art references. This decision significantly advances Fluidmaster’s challenge in related district court litigation.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB panel majority found that the cited prior art references teach or suggest all limitations of claims 1-14, rendering them unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically construed key terms like 'overflow tube' and 'Flow Limitations' to support Petitioner’s reading, though ultimately found the overflow tube limitation was limiting in scope.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found several independent claims unpatentable over prior art references (Brown and Ho) using grounds of obviousness. The Board adopted a broad construction for 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB found 16 claims unpatentable over prior art references, primarily based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board upheld its construction of 'integrally molded with' as 'molded together as a single structure.'
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Delta Power Equipment, Lowe’s and Home Depot seek rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their cutting‑machine blade‑guard patent, arguing the Board misread the Gass prior art and that claims 1,2,5,9 are obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent (8972161), challenging the claims based on obviousness over prior art references. Tesla argues that the claimed energy-optimum routing and automatic cruise control features are conventional modifications of existing technology, making them unpatentable.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Petitioners (Delta Power Equipment, Lowe's, Home Depot) successfully requested institution of their Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 7,475,622. The challenge asserts that the claimed safety features for table saws are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gass and AAPA.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully petitioned to institute IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering automotive systems and power management. The PTAB preliminarily found that the challenged claims were obvious over prior art, specifically Neiss's Predictive Cruise Control system. This decision advances Tesla's challenge in a related District Court case.
Delta Power Equipment Corporation et al. v.P & F Brother Industrial Corporation
Petitioner's attempt to invalidate a cutting machine safety device patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that key biasing elements in the prior art did not match the specific limitations of the claims.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art combination with Neiss supported the modifications to the patented system, particularly regarding route handling and iterative energy calculation. Claims 1–6, 8–15, 17, and 18 were found invalid.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate multiple IPRs, including the challenge to U.S. Patent 11,307,369. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially approved confidentiality treatment of the settlement agreement.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. successfully secured institution of IPR against Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s optical connector patent (11307369), challenging 22 claims based on obviousness and anticipation.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. challenges the validity of Senko Advanced Components' '369 patent, arguing that various claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references (Scherer, Lee, Gniadek). The petition asserts both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically targeting connector housing arrangements in optical fiber technology.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products settled their IPR dispute over a handheld scanner patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings before trial, treating the settlement as confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless jointly request that their 5G NR settlement be kept confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply and Everlight Electronics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,742, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential per regulatory provisions.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) in IPR2024-00987.
TransCore, LP et al. v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00982 before the Board issued an institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s Bluetooth streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards and ignored key Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung and Redstone Logics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,253,925. The parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR and requested the settlement be kept confidential.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also designated as business‑confidential information.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson, Nokia and Active Wireless Technologies have settled their 5G NR patent dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues that Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered, the petition lacks merit, and discretionary factors favor denial given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Redstone Logics LLC
Samsung Electronics and Redstone Logics settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,253,925 before a trial was instituted. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 held by Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting that the LED claims are unpatentable. The petition relies heavily on grounds of anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references. This challenge targets numerous structural features within light emitting diode technology.
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
The Appellant, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201617008869 by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The High Court issued notice and set a date for re-notification to hear the matter.