Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9001–9100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliate, and Nissan have jointly moved to withdraw their IPR against Foras Technologies' vehicle safety patent, citing a settlement and early-stage status of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735, leaving the prior decision in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Broadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in an IPR petition, arguing the technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references like Dua and Giobbi. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are merely well-known concepts applied to secure authentication systems.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's patent claims in a PTAB petition, arguing the technology is obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner contends that existing hybrid devices integrating secure memory and reader circuits render the claimed digital key/reader systems unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google challenges Proxense's RFID authentication patents (8646042) in a Petition, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art. The petitioner asserts that existing technology discloses core elements of hybrid devices and proximity token systems. This proceeding is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association filed an IPR challenging Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent on telematics and driver monitoring systems. The petitioner asserts that all 27 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This challenges the validity of a key technology in automotive safety and connectivity.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815 owned by Maxell, Ltd., asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petition relies on multiple grounds combining various prior art references like Horn, Baumgartner, and Kaplan/Bryant to demonstrate that the claimed multimedia management features were obvious at the time of invention.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of the '958 Patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over Bigbee and Nguyen. The challenger contends that combining these prior art references would have been readily apparent to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Vectair Systems Inc. v.Fresh Products, Inc.
Vectair Systems Inc.'s IPR challenge against Fresh Products, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102) or obviousness (103).
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Verizon Wireless's patent (9198042), finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that prior art references could be combined to teach secure execution environments for mobile data services.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google LLC successfully argued that the challenged claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art (Dua, Giobbi ’157, Kotola, Buer). The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 20 challenged claims after rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction arguments. This sets up a significant trial phase regarding wireless security and digital key technology.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA) successfully argued that the patent claims related to telematics and driving safety systems were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion, advancing the IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s '878 patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Samsung against Maxell regarding video management systems. The Board found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Horn and Baumgartner. This moves the case into substantive examination on obviousness grounds.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB instituted IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s patent claims related to camera control systems. The Board declined discretionary denial despite parallel district court litigation because the petitioner agreed not to assert the same grounds there.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Partners I LLC
The Board found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Petitioner successfully argued that the combination of prior art references, including Limont, Wright, and Xu, disclosed the claimed invention. This final decision provides a strong defense against infringement claims in wireless communications technology.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying unpatentability for claims 16-27. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to prove obviousness against various prior art combinations, particularly regarding limitations related to user profiles and shared video information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found that claims 1-6 and 9-13 were unpatentable over Kaplan and Bryant under 35 U.S.C. § 103, while rejecting the challenge to claims 7, 8, 14, and 15 due to insufficient evidence of prior art accessibility. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction for 'user profile,' aligning with district court findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all 11 challenged claims unpatentable by obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining various prior art references—including Chinn, Takahashi, and Kim—would render the claimed features obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech India Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of Telangana, Represented By ...
Mahyco Monsanto Biotech filed an appeal against a single judge's order regarding the fixation of reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds by the State of Telangana. The court heard arguments concerning potential prejudice to the petitioners if the impugned order was suspended. Ultimately, the court decided to suspend the challenged government order until the next hearing date.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. v.Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a rectification petition filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Ltd. against Kana Ram Kalirana & Anr. The court noted that the parties had entered into a settlement in another suit, wherein Respondent No. 1 undertook to abandon the impugned trademark registration. Consequently, the court directed the Trade Marks Registry to expedite the processing of the withdrawal application filed by the respondent, effectively allowing the matter to be resolved through administrative action.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European Patent EP2792100, owned by Daedalus Prime LLC. The plaintiff sought permission to serve process on the Chinese defendants (Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc.) and the Taiwanese defendant (MediaTek Inc.) via their respective German branch offices under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff argued that the German branches operate with sufficient independence and autonomy to qualify as places of business through which service could validly be effected.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
Pharaoh Energy Services has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Flex‑Chem’s 9,944,843 well‑stimulation patent. The petition relies on Frenier and Reyes as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of all 13 claims. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint PTAB request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b) and related regulations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of IPR2024-00790 was denied after the Patent Owner filed a Notice of Appeal, which stripped the PTAB of jurisdiction. The Board cited In re Graves in reaching its decision.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claim 4 of its 3‑D NAND patent remains unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness law, ignoring KSR precedent and the known‑substitute teaching of Kim and Tessariol.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑00797 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement covering the ’222 patent.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on claim 4 of Yangtze Memory’s 3D memory patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to demonstrate a motivation or benefit for the alleged modification.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR by joint request.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has requested a Director Review of the IPR decision against Yangtze Memory Technologies. The Patent Owner has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress successfully defended its NAC patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, with the PTAB upholding all challenged claims. The Board found the antedating evidence properly presented and rejected the petitioners’ untimely arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the PTAB's final written decision on the ’484 patent. They allege the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and breaching the burden of conception and diligence.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco’s request for Director Review of the final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving patent 7,523,484. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
Valeo SE et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
Valeo SE et al. filed a Petition challenging claims of Foras Technologies Limited's patent (7502958) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petitioners argue that the claimed fault-tolerant processor architecture is rendered obvious by combining Bigbee and Nguyen prior art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging the validity of Yangtze Memory Technologies' '031 Patent, arguing that key claims are obvious over prior art references Kim and Tessariol. The petition focuses on 3D NAND memory structures, specifically multi-stack staircase designs and etch profiles. Micron asserts that the combination of teachings from these references renders the claimed features predictable and non-novel.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed a Petition challenging 18 claims of InfoExpress's U.S. Patent No. 7,523,484 in the PTAB. The petitioners argue that the network access methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation against InfoExpress in District Court.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's 7523484 Patent in an IPR, asserting that the network security claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references (Krantz and Herrmann) disclose nearly identical architecture to the patented invention, making the claims unpatentable.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims in a well remediation patent, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient novelty or obviousness against prior art references. The Board relied heavily on the proximity of parallel district court litigation when applying Fintiv factors for discretionary denial.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenged DexCom's CGM patents in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art combining Yarger and Love. The Board granted institution after claim construction, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS and FORTINET successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction regarding device reconfiguration while accepting the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Krantz and Herrmann.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Court decision.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Pharaoh Energy Services' petition to institute IPR proceedings against Flex-Chem for patent 9944843, citing a lack of compelling merits. The Board found that the cumulative weight of Fintiv factors and insufficient technical basis in the petitioner’s evidence led to the denial.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
Regency Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Chowdhury Enterprise And Ors
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief concerning its registered mark "METRO" against the respondents. The court addressed procedural matters, granting the plaintiff leave to add prayers and confirming jurisdiction under specific legal provisions.
Alcon Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.
Oxular Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Oxular Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant an Indian Patent Application (No. 201817034819). The appellant argued that the invention disclosed a substantial technical advancement and economic significance, fulfilling the necessary criteria.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application (no. 202117034705) under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court first condoned a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and subsequently issued notice to the respondent for submission.
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd filed an appeal against objections raised by The Controller of Patents. The respondent completed submissions on Sections 10(4) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, requesting a hearing regarding objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d).
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents to grant a patent titled 'Reversible 2-Dimensional Pre-/Post-Filtering for Lapped Biorthogonal Transform'. The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court ultimately held that the invention provided tangible benefits beyond ordinary computing functionality and was therefore patentable.
V.Lakshminarayanasamy & Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy v.Siva Bhaskaren & The Deputy Registrar, Trademark Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal or cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1191299, which was registered in Siva Bhaskaren's name for goods like pressure cookers and fans. The court noted that the trademark's validity expired on April 10, 2023, as no renewal request had been filed within the ten-year period. Consequently, the petition seeking rectification became infructuous, leading to its closure.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/04/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1. Advanced Bionics AG Laubisrütistrasse 28 8712 Stäfa Swi
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board already considered all issues and that the petitioners forfeited new arguments. The Board’s prior finding that none of the references are prior art stands.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
V.K.R. Venkatesan v.S.Athiappan
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises
The Delhi High Court allowed Taco Bell Corp. to withdraw its rectification petition against Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises' trademark registration, provided the latter adheres to a binding undertaking. Tamoghna had previously initiated opposition proceedings against Taco Bell’s 'TACO SUPREME' mark despite limitations on their own registered device mark. The court accepted Tamoghna's commitment to cease all oppositions and cancellations related to 'TACO SUPREME', allowing the petition to be disposed of while preserving rights for future action in case of breach.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.
Electronica India Ltd. v.Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
Soremartec S.A v.M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited
The Madras High Court closed rectification petitions filed by Soremartec S.A against M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited after both parties executed a comprehensive Memorandum of Compromise. The settlement allows Cavinkare to continue using the disputed marks ('MOMENTS') but strictly limits their application to specific, non-conflicting goods (e.g., coffee and tea). Crucially, Cavinkare agrees not to use these marks for confectionery or chocolate products, thereby protecting Soremartec's superior rights in 'FERRERO MOMENTS'.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges the PTAB’s finding of privity with its subsidiary Lectrosonics, seeking to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process rights.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones has filed a Director Review petition asking the PTAB to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s microphone patent, arguing the Board erred in finding privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics. The petition contends that parent‑subsidiary relationships do not satisfy the Taylor exceptions used to bar the challenge.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE microphones’ request for Director review of the termination of IPR 2025‑00231 was denied. The Board affirmed that Lectrosonics is a privy of RØDE, satisfying the §315(b) time‑bar and correctly applying Taylor exceptions.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. They argue the Board ignored Guidance, settled expectations, and failed to rule on a motion to terminate, warranting denial of institution.