Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9301–9400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The USPTO denied Disney Media's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00736 concerning patent 7,574,725. The Board found the petition did not meet the required standards for review.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Motorola Mobility's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR 2024-00688 concerning patent 9,997,660. The institution denial remains in effect, ending the IPR proceeding.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla (Petitioner) challenged Autonomous Devices' patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Buibas and Grotmol. The Board found factors favoring institution, meaning the case will proceed to the merits phase.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges EMKinetics' patent on tremor treatment using electrical stimulation, arguing that prior art references Gesotti and Burnett render all claims obvious or anticipated. The petitioner details how these older devices satisfy every limitation of the claimed apparatus and method for treating neurological conditions like tremor.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,574,725 on grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger argues that the claimed method for multimedia distribution is rendered obvious by combining prior art references like Garfinkle and Kosten. This challenge relates to Digital Content Delivery/Video-on-Demand technology.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health challenges the validity of EMKinetics' '669 patent by asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Gesotti and Burnett. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology for tremor treatment is already disclosed in the prior art, presenting multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
Intel Corporation initiated this Petition challenging the validity of Ericsson's patent (7151430), asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Taniguchi, Midya, and Raghavan to demonstrate that claimed features in inductive coupling/antenna design were already known or suggested.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC challenged Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s patent claims regarding lens design and stray light reduction in a PTAB proceeding. The challenge centers on obviousness, arguing that the claimed 'light trap' structure is merely an predictable adaptation of prior art CN182.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla successfully argued that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art, leading to the Board's decision to institute IPR trial. The petitioner focused on combining spiking neural network techniques with autonomous robotic operation for improved efficiency and task specialization. This institution sets up a high-stakes technical battle regarding AI implementation in robotics.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Digital Media Technology Holdings regarding patent 7574725. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for key terms like 'distributing' and 'exhibiting,' favoring the Petitioner’s interpretation over the Patent Owner’s narrow industry definitions. This sets a favorable precedent for interpreting media technology claims broadly in PTAB proceedings.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information or evidence to certain persons during appeal proceedings. Curio Bioscience Inc., the appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance, sought to restrict access to a redacted document (Annex CR-1) filed in support of its appeal against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court of Appeal held that an unappealed order of the Court of First Instance under Rule 262A restricting access to certain information remains in effect after the conclusion of proceedings, including during appeal proceedings, unless otherwise specified.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's patent (8117645) in the PTAB, arguing that claims related to Network Access Control are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate that combining known security and NAC techniques would have been routine for a POSITA.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the edible oil market. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'SATHYAM GOLD' on products mimicking the plaintiff's registered brand 'Gold Winner'. Both parties ultimately agreed to settle the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to decree the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ishfaq Chemical Industries & Anr.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Ishfaq Chemical Industries for infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, including passing off. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 28, 2024.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel v.Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel against the trial court's order granting an injunction to Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had established use of the 'SPG' trademark since 2007, noting that appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings made by the trial court. While dismissing the main appeal, the High Court granted a temporary stay on the order for three weeks.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Court decision.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Shoals Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,689,153 covering solar lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under § 112. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent, 'a self locking glazing system'. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and directed the parties to proceed with the suit. The Defendant contested the injunction, raising objections regarding the validity and suppression of the patent.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications
Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Up Hotels Clarks Limited v.Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Up Hotels Clarks Limited, cancelling a competing trademark registration held by Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established 'CLARKS' brand, which possesses significant goodwill and reputation dating back decades. Despite the respondent's claims of honest adoption, the court determined that the similarity, coupled with the identical class of services (hotels/restaurants), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, thus violating trademark law.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
NOVAWELL v.C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_397/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/03/2024 APPLICANT: C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Represented by Denis Schertenleib RESPONDENT: NOVAWELL
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its Network Access Control patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, asserting the Board correctly found no unpatentable claims. The petitioners’ new arguments are deemed untimely and forfeited.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet successfully defended claims of InfoExpress’s network‑access control patent in IPR2024‑00677; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s request for review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00677 and related cases. The order confirms that no Director Review will be granted.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed a Petition challenging 11 claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8578444) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann renders the claimed network access control features predictable to a POSITA.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems and FORTINET successfully instituted an IPR against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann. The Board agreed that combining network authentication (Krantz) with policy enforcement (Herrmann) would teach the claimed method for auditing devices.
Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Laboratories P.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd against Apex Laboratories P.Ltd. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 343270) in Class 5, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal confirms that the parties had reached a compromise in an earlier case (C.S.No.614 of 1998), and the terms of that settlement remain binding.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
M/s.Zeenath's Leather Planet v.Mr.M.Abdul Rasheed
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s. Zeenath's Leather Planet seeking the removal of Trade Mark No. 1623248 from the Register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for default. This highlights the critical importance of timely representation and adherence to court schedules in IP litigation.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,945,885, leading to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement while denying its separation from the IPR files.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam, LLC have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,916,483. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of further contest.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,945,885 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,916,483, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB refused to institute an IPR against Delta Electronics’ power‑converter patent. The petition argues that petitioners should be allowed to rely on the patent owner’s infringement claim constructions, even if they disagree with them, citing a split among PTAB panels.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The USPTO denied Vicor Corporation's request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of IPR2024-00704 concerning Delta Electronics' patent 8,711,580. No further substantive rulings on claim patentability were made.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Delta Faucet’s patent on an illuminated faucet system survives the PTAB’s review, with the Board affirming the patentability of claims 10 and 19 over the cited prior art. The Patent Owner’s response urges the Director to deny Kohler’s request for review, emphasizing the conclusory nature of Kohler’s expert testimony.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler’s IPR against Delta Faucet’s illuminated faucet patent continues after the Director issued a new claim construction. The patent owner argues the Board’s findings should stand and that the Director’s action violates the APA.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler seeks reversal of the Board’s non‑obviousness rulings after a Director Review found that Tseng teaches side‑emitting light and Tse teaches translucent material, arguing that multiple claims of the Delta Faucet patent are obvious.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The PTAB issued an order extending by 30 days the deadline to issue a decision on remand in the IPR between Kohler and Delta Faucet over U.S. Patent 10,393,363. The extension is justified by the volume of grounds and claims raised in the parties' briefs.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s final decision that upheld the validity of claims 10 and 19 of its illuminated fixture patent. The petition alleges factual errors and ignored expert admissions, seeking reversal of the Board’s findings.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied its institution petition for IPR2024-00706, challenging the Board’s handling of expert testimony. The email urges the Director to institute the case and defer factual findings to trial.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,819,263 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and emphasizes that no merits have been decided.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics filed a joint request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential under federal statutes.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor and Delta Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00705 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek challenges MOSAID's patent (7945885) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of Nowka/Borkar and Nicol/Borkar. The petitioner argues that the combination of prior art references provides clear motivation to combine elements for advanced power management features in SoCs.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. initiated this Petition challenging the patentability of MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s claims related to Power Management/DVFS technology. The petitioner asserts multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103) based on combinations of prior art references like Nowka, Borkar, Nicol, and Iyengar.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
Vicor Corporation filed a Petition challenging key claims of Delta Electronics' patent (US 10,877,534), asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The challenger argues that the claimed power supply apparatus is rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references in DC-DC Converters technology.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al. v.New Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT, Inc. filed a Petition challenging all 20 claims of Medtronic's '483 Patent based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Watson and Schwartz—render the implantable drug delivery device unpatentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging all 64 claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that MediaTek demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by combining prior art references Nowka and Borkar in the field of integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR challenge against MOSAID regarding power management technology. Despite a dissenting judge arguing for reasonable likelihood based on Nowka and Borkar, the Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or intrinsic support for its obviousness theories.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Vicor Corporation's IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the argument that Petitioner relied on impermissible hindsight bias when combining prior art references for obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Vicor Corporation v.Delta Electronics, Inc.
The PTAB denied Vicor Corporation's request to institute IPR against Delta Electronics, Inc.'s patent 8711580, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Kohler Co. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Delta Faucet Company et al., challenging claims related to illuminated showerheads. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key grounds, advancing the dispute to trial.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
Director granted review, vacating parts of the Final Written Decision in a Kohler vs. Delta Faucet IPR, remanding claims 10 and 19 for further analysis.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 24 claims of the patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a broad construction for key terms like 'outer illumination surface' and 'translucent light pipe,' supporting the finding of obviousness across multiple grounds.
Kohler Co. v.Delta Faucet Company et al.
The Board found that claims 1, 2, and 9 were unpatentable over prior art references Tseng and Mizuno based on obviousness. The remaining claims (3-8 and 10-24) were deemed patentable.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap requests Director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Eagle View’s geo‑temporal property‑database patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied procedural rules, penalized its claim‑chart format and expert declaration length, and ignored substantive prior‑art mappings.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap's request for Director Review of the earlier institution denial in the IPR against Eagle View's patent.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Eagle View Technologies' patent 10671648. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Harris and Florance. This challenge focuses on geo-temporal database indexing and querying methods.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Eagle View Technologies, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Nearmap US against Eagle View Technologies regarding a property database patent (10671648). The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to provide a detailed, non-bare-quotation explanation linking prior art disclosures to the challenged claims.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bisscience Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-22) under reference UPC-001556, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with Curio Bisscience Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.