Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8501–8600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
This order of the Court of Appeal concerned Texas Instruments' request for expedition of an appeal against the Court of First Instance's denial of their application for security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669. Texas Instruments argued that expedition was needed because they continued to incur legal costs defending the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation without adequate security from the claimant, NST. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it insufficiently substantiated and noting that Texas Instruments had not demonstrated a particular interest in shortening the 15-day period for NST to lodge its Statement of response.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG filed an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich that denied Audi's application requesting Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide adequate security for legal costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Concurrently with its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal proceedings and shorten deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that Audi had not explained any particular interest in shortening the respondent's 15-day period for filing a Statement of response, and that the request regarding further proceedings was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
The PTAB denied a request to reverse the denial of institution for IPR2024-00947, finding that Kane was not 'previously presented art' and that it was substantially similar to Knott.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Mr Lakshit Goyal Proprietor Of Rama Domestic Appliances v.Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark infringement proceedings between Mr Lakshit Goyal's Rama Domestic Appliances and Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks ('HPC APPLIANCES'). While several procedural applications were disposed of, the core suit was registered, and notice was issued to the defendant, setting the stage for detailed arguments on trademark similarity and infringement.
Arm Germany GmbH, ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited v.Respondent
The provided document contains only metadata indicating approval signatures and timestamps dated 20–21 May 2024, with the phrase 'Hyväksyn dokumentin' (Finnish for 'I approve the document'). No substantive judgment text, facts, legal arguments, or operative decision is available in the source material.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent 2 043 492, sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit by the respondents' products in multiple countries. The court addressed issues of undue delay in seeking interim relief, patent claim interpretation, the summary nature of validity examination in interim proceedings, and the ordering of provisional cost reimbursement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 covering fiber‑optic connectors. They jointly filed a motion to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements challenges Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent (11050097) by asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references, such as Hanisch with Meador and Shin, renders the claimed features predictable for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the claims covering adaptive bitrate streaming are obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combinations of references like Ogdon and Allen, supplemented by Klements and Gamble, teach every limitation of the challenged claims.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
Honeywell International Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Honeywell International Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Organic Fluorescent Compositions.' The core dispute centered on the validity of amendments made to the original claims, specifically changing the scope from a 'composition' to just the 'compound.' Honeywell argued that these amendments merely narrowed the scope and were fully supported by the original specification. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the application for fresh examination.
Vijay Abrol v.Yogesh Kumar Rustogi
The Delhi High Court allowed appeals filed by Vijay Abrol, setting aside a previous judgment that had favored Yogesh Kumar Rustogi in a passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary goodwill and reputation for the trademark 'BRITE' as required by the triple test for passing off. Furthermore, the appellant/defendant successfully demonstrated their own established use of the mark and secured its registration, leading the court to conclude the original suit lacked a real basis.
Casablanca Apparels Pvt Ltd v.Polo Lauren Company Lp & Anr. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Casablanca Apparels against Polo Lauren's trademark 'POLO'. The court held that since an application challenging the mark's validity (under Section 124) was already pending before the Trial Court, the current rectification petition was not maintainable at this stage. This ruling emphasizes the procedural hierarchy between concurrent proceedings in civil suits and intellectual property rectification actions.
Tirupati Structurals Limited v.Jai Prakash Singhal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tirupati Structurals Limited against Jai Prakash Singhal, finding that the defendant's use of 'MM TIRUPATI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court held that despite minor differences in prefixes, the identical and prominent shared element 'TIRUPATI', coupled with the similarity in goods (pipes and fittings), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded by common law passing off principles against calculated attempts to capitalize on established goodwill.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Croda Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Croda Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated November 6, 2020, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original patent application (No. 1432/DELNP/2013) concerning Agrochemical Adjuvants and Formulations was refused.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd v.Hub.Nrw-Euindia Invest Gmbh & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd (AMUL), granting a decree against multiple defendants for trademark infringement related to the 'AMUL TRU seltzer' brand. The court issued sweeping orders requiring domain registrars and the Department of Telecommunications to block access to various infringing websites globally. Furthermore, it restrained certain parties from exporting AMUL products that were not intended for the EU market, reinforcing robust protection against digital counterfeiting and unauthorized trade.
Grip Invest Technologies Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Grip Invest Technologies, restraining a newly discovered mirroring website (eliteedgebrokerage.info) from operating. The court found that the new site was an exact copy of the plaintiff's website, infringing both copyright and trademark. Furthermore, the court directed the Domain Name Registrar and the Department of Telecommunication to take immediate steps to block access to the infringing domain, reinforcing proactive measures against online IP infringement.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's attempt to reopen evidence regarding costs and damages in a trademark infringement suit. The court noted the defendant's history of 'abysmal conduct,' including being a 'habitual offender/rank infringer' who repeatedly infringes third-party products. Given that the defendant had ample opportunity to present their case previously, the court found the late application was not bona fide and aimed only at delay.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that left its 3D NAND flash patent claims unchallenged. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored reply evidence. A reversal could affect the enforceability of claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent 10,937,806.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on its 3D memory patent is contested. The Board found no error in rejecting Micron’s obviousness arguments based on Toyama, and the response urges denial of the review request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding its 3D NAND memory patents. The petition challenges claims based on obviousness over prior art reference Toyama et al., asserting that specific modifications are predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D NAND memory technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 10 based on Toyama's First Exemplary Structure, moving the case toward trial preparation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 and 18 unpatentable over the prior art reference Toyama under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued a Final Written Decision after addressing several key claim construction disputes regarding isolation regions, dielectric structures, and local contacts.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that dependent claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,806 was not unpatentable over Toyama. The challenge failed because the Petitioner could not demonstrate obviousness for its base independent claim 8.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
ParkerVision requests Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found Texas Instruments' claims obvious based on expert simulations. The owner argues the Board abused discretion by relying on unreliable simulations and allowing a post‑institution do‑over, seeking vacatur and termination of the IPR.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
RPX's petition to invalidate ParkerVision's down-conversion patent was denied by the PTAB, which found no reasonable likelihood of success on the asserted anticipation and obviousness grounds.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments successfully defended its 7,496,342 patent against ParkerVision’s Director Review request, which sought to overturn the PTAB’s institution and obviousness findings. The Board affirmed that claims 18‑21 are unpatentable as obvious over DeMaw and Macnally, and the review request was denied.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00934 concerning patent 7,496,342 owned by ParkerVision.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated initiated an IPR challenging ParkerVision's frequency down-conversion receiver claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that various combinations of prior art references, including Tayloe and Macnally, render the claimed apparatus obvious.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated successfully challenged ParkerVision's patent claims regarding RF signal processing via an IPR petition. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, leading to the institution of the case for substantive analysis.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Texas Instruments (TI) successfully secured the institution of its IPR against ParkerVision, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that TI's evidence was sufficient at this stage to overcome arguments regarding inherency and simulation data reliability.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB found that dependent claims 19-21 were unpatentable over prior art references DeMaw and Macnally. The decision hinged on the petitioner's successful demonstration via computer simulation that routine circuit optimizations fell within the scope of the cited prior art.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038. They jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Petitioners fuboTV and Yanka have responded to DISH’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of patent 8,868,772 are unpatentable should stand. They contend DISH’s arguments are outside the scope of review and that the prior art clearly discloses continuous playback.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
DISH Technologies requests a Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent obvious. The petition alleges procedural and substantive errors, including improper theory shifting and misinterpretation of prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review, arguing the PTAB erred in instituting an IPR against Samsung by ignoring the Fintiv factors and the rescinded 2022 Guidance Memo. The company seeks a denial of institution and an extension of the filing deadline.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB denied Duration Media's request for Director Review of the decision that had denied institution of IPR2024‑00937 concerning patent 11,741,482. The denial leaves the institution decision unchanged.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
The PTAB affirmed all ten claims of the ’329 ad‑viewability patent, finding Duration Media failed to prove obviousness over Krassner, Badros, and Harkins. Claim constructions on “render,” “replacement advertisement,” and the “in‑response‑to” step were adopted.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,389,038 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the petitioners' requests for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies' streaming patent, leaving the original decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior art was already considered and the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, invoking discretionary denial factors.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
A joint notice was filed by DISH Technologies and the petitioners confirming that the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00918 contains no confidential information, allowing it to be publicly released.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media filed a Director review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Rich Media Club's patent 11,741,482. The email attaches the service copy of the request and seeks the Director’s consideration.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media LLC challenged Rich Media Club LLC's patents, asserting that claims 1-14 related to viewability measurement are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed technology is obvious when combining prior art references like Koeppel and Seo.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.