Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8701–8800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to reconsider the institution decision in IPR2024‑01133, finding no extraordinary circumstances despite recent guidance changes. The Board applied the Chief Judge’s and Director’s memoranda and upheld the original institution.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s Director Review Request to vacate the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01048. Apple contends the Board correctly treated the method steps as order‑agnostic and that the prior art analysis remains sound.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Patent owners S.M.R Innovations and Y.M.R Tech have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024‑01048 against Apple Inc. The request, submitted by lead counsel Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley, seeks reconsideration of the institution.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences settled three USPTO IPRs (01130, 01132, 01133) and withdrew their pending Director Review requests, ending further proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01048 concerning patent 10,547,648. The denial leaves the institution decision in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia Technologies Oy faces an Inter Partes Review challenge regarding its video compression patents, specifically concerning sub-pixel interpolation methods. The petitioner argues that combining TML6 and Fandrianto renders the claimed method obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA). This proceeding centers on whether the combination of prior art references meets the 103 obviousness standard.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against Nokia's patent (8036273), allowing Amazon to proceed with its obviousness arguments. The Board found that the combination of prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto plausibly teaches the claimed sub-pixel interpolation methods.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Nokia's patent (7280599) regarding video compression and sub-pixel interpolation. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto, leading to the institution of all 51 challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Nokia's video compression patents based on obviousness over prior art references TML6 and Fandrianto. The Board granted institution, finding that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for unpatentability. This decision sets a significant precedent in challenging complex technical claims using combined software/hardware disclosures.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR petition against S.M.R Innovations, finding no reasonable likelihood that the 'apparatus for rerouting data' patent would be invalidated based on prior art references like Chihara and BluetoothSpec.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding several claims, focusing on how prior art combines to teach all limitations of the asserted claims in data routing and multimedia transmission technology.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Patent 8,711,866 B2, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its grounds of obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against S.M.R Innovations LTD was denied by the PTAB, finding that Petitioner failed to meet the standard for institution on obviousness grounds (103). The Board specifically found that prior art references did not teach scanning for pre-identified compatible devices as required by the claims.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 13 claims unpatentable by preponderance of the evidence. The Board found that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Weaver combined with Lee ’053 and Song.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 5 and 6 of patent 7168842 unpatentable based on anticipation (Uekusa) and obviousness (Uekusa/Isoda). Claims 7-9 were not proven unpatentable due to claim clarity issues.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
The PTAB found the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated unpatentability of 12 claims against S.M.R Innovations LTD et al. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references taught or suggested all limitations for multiple challenged claims, particularly under § 103.
Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that since full patent rights only commence upon grant, counting the twenty-year term from the date of application is contradictory. The respondents argued that both sections operate at different stages and are compliant with international obligations like TRIPS Agreement. The Court ultimately held that Section 53 is intra vires the Constitution.
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
Sunflame Enterprises appealed the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to reject its opposition against a trademark application. The appellant argued that the Registrar incorrectly applied the 'actual confusion' test, contending that the standard should be the more robust 'likelihood of confusion.' The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed written submissions within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Chavvi Poplai And Anr v.Rajesh Chugh And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order: an application seeking condonation of delay, which was granted, and a rectification petition challenging the trademark 'NIZAM'S'. The petitioners sought to remove the respondent's trademark registration, arguing that the word is publici juris. While the court accepted notice for the main petition, it also noted prior injunction orders favoring the respondents, directing both parties to file detailed replies before the next hearing.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_241/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 06/05/2024 Nota: Richiesta ai sensi del R. 262A R.o.P. da parte dei ricorrenti di un ordine di riservatezza relativo alle informazioni finanziarie fornite a s
UPC Decision UPC-001501 v.Respondent
This order concerns the severance of proceedings under Rule 303.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315. The Local Chamber Mannheim ordered the separation of the proceedings against Defendants 1, 2, 7, and 8 (located in China and Hong Kong) from the main proceedings, because service on these defendants must be effected abroad under the Hague Service Convention and will take considerable time. The court found severance appropriate since the representatives of the other defendants confirmed they were not mandated by the China/Hong Kong defendants, and prior attempts to treat service on Defendant 3 as effective for all defendants had been rejected.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Photon Wave Co.,Ltd., Laser Components SAS
L’intervenant ne peut développer des prétentions contraires à la partie qu’il soutient et ne peut développer de manière autonome des demandes et selon des modalités procédurales distinctes de celles offertes à la partie qu’elle soutient. Dès lors, l’intervenant n’ayant pas déposé de demande reconventionnelle en nullité dans le délai imparti à la personne qu’il soutient, ne peut pas prétendre à une extension des délais pour déposer une demande autonome. Même si le brevet européen en litige a été
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 9,048,696 inductive‑charging patent against Anker’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited references do not render any of the challenged claims obvious and that there is no motivation to combine them.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534, prompting Solventum’s unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024‑01002. The motion cites the settlement, lack of opposition, and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding before institution.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation and M.E.A.C. Engineering reached a settlement that led to the termination of IPR2024-01001 before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00952, leaving the earlier denial of institution unchanged. The proceeding therefore remains denied.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar of Copyrights and Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed a suit against the Registrar of Copyrights alleging that respondents were selling mustard oil using an almost identical trade dress and packaging to the petitioner's product. The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters, noting the emergence of evidence showing blatant copying by the respondents. While granting some time for the respondent to file necessary documentation, the court emphasized the seriousness of the infringement claim and fixed a firm date for the next hearing.
Informa Markets India Private Limited v.M/S 4Pinfotech And Anr
Informa Markets India Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing copyright registration (L-79443/2018) for the work titled 'Virtual Expo'. The petitioner challenged the validity of the registration, arguing that the document merely described generic benefits of conducting virtual expositions. The Delhi High Court examined whether this description constituted protectable literary material or was simply a documentation of an idea. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the content was abstract and extremely generic, it did not meet the threshold for copyrightability.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Samsung Electronics Co,M v.Samsung Leasing & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Samsung Electronics. The court allowed a minor application concerning corporate name changes for one defendant, while simultaneously framing an additional issue to determine the validity and non-use of the plaintiff's 'SAMSUNG' trademarks. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendants' attempt to prematurely adjudicate objections regarding the mode of proof during evidence, holding that such issues are best reserved for final arguments.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Bot Organic Private Limited v.Piruz Khambhatta & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge filed by Piruz Khambhatta against an earlier Commercial Court order that allowed the plaintiff, Bot Organic Private Limited, to amend its plaint. The core dispute involved alleged trademark infringement and passing-off concerning the mark 'RUS' used on fruit juice packaging versus the plaintiff's well-known mark 'RASNA'. The court upheld the amendment, finding that adding variants of the existing trade mark did not fundamentally change the nature or scope of the original suit.
Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited v.Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited against Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of identical or deceptively similar labels and trade dress for rice products. This immediate relief prevents the defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell goods under the disputed marks until the full trial can take place.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions concerning the registration of impugned trademarks. While an initial request for document exemption was granted, a subsequent interim application seeking directions was dismissed because the marks had already been registered. The court noted that despite the registrations, the core legal question regarding third-party rights under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act requires further consideration and set a date for re-notification.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenges the validity of Cellspin Soft's patent 9900766, alleging obviousness over various combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on combining Kahn with Bluetooth and Singh129 with Singh906 to invalidate claims related to mobile multimedia upload systems. This initial filing sets up a complex technical battleground in the PTAB.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok and its affiliates successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Cellspin Soft regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over multiple prior art references, including Singh129/Singh906 and Kahn/Bluetooth.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director denied TikTok's IPR petitions against Cellspin Soft, citing precedent that bars foreign governments from participating in AIA proceedings. The decision vacated prior institution orders and terminated the review.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Dialect LLC's patent, challenging claims related to Natural Language Processing and Conversational AI. The Board found that prior art disclosure regarding context stack synchronization was sufficient to warrant further review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art (Coffman, Kennewick, Ross). The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the prior art disclosures were too high-level to support the combination claimed.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully initiated an IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent (9031845) covering natural language speech processing in vehicles. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references like Coffman, Julia, and Cooper.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent on conversational AI was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Ronning.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Dialect LLC's speech recognition patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its unpatentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision maintains the validity of the '7398209 patent in the context of ongoing district court litigation.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The decision hinged on the Petitioner successfully demonstrating that prior art (Koebler) disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, while also clarifying claim terms regarding sensor data analysis.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential. The motion invokes statutory confidentiality provisions and cites prior Board precedent.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence in response to Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s earlier decision was proper and the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
Dupont Industrial Biosciences Usa Llc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a divisional patent application (No. 202118031579). The Appellant argues that the divisional application clearly demonstrates distinct claims, contrary to the Deputy Controller's finding.
Pharma Mar, S.A. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharma Mar, S.A. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202117032003 for "Anti-Cancer Compounds" by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court accepted notice and listed the matter for further hearing.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Shivgyan Developers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint settlement application between The Indian Hotels Company Limited (Plaintiff) and Shivgyan Developers Private Limited (Defendant). To avoid protracted litigation regarding the well-known trademark 'VIVANTA', both parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute. Under the terms, the Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's sole ownership of VIVANTA, committed to using the alternative mark 'VIVIAN,' and undertook to withdraw four pending trademark applications related to the disputed brand.
Amit Sood v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Amit Sood, granting cancellation of the mark 'ROSHAN' (No. 1324435) registered by the respondents under Class 42. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the name since the 1960s, establishing extensive goodwill in the photography sector. This judgment underscores the principle that prior use and established reputation outweigh subsequent trademark registration when seeking cancellation.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala Technologies sought to have the court decline jurisdiction and reject the revocation action as inadmissible, or alternatively to stay proceedings pending a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice in parallel German revocation appeal proceedings. Nokia opposed the preliminary objection and the requests for a stay. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat), presided over by judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, rejected the preliminary objection in its order of 2 May 2024.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (7,925,426) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims related to route optimization and power management are obvious. The PTAB found merits compelling and decided to institute the case based on favorable Fintiv factors.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. The dispute centers on whether specific probe packet techniques in coaxial networks are obvious.