Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9401–9500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
AT&T and the Soto patent owners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,238,754 covering passive optical network technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR, requesting the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s 9,350,349 patent covering power islands with plural sleep transistors. The Board found MediaTek’s arguments insufficient and no abuse of discretion.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers and North Atlantic Imports have settled their dispute over a cooking‑appliance patent and jointly moved to dismiss the inter partes review.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and LED maker BX LED have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,973,465 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites lack of institution and no merits decided, requesting Board approval of termination.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED settled their LED patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned PTAB to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging claims related to power management in integrated circuits. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's '907 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references including Goldenberg and Levin. The petitioner asserted compelling evidence of unpatentability across all 20 claims based on various grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenges the validity of North Atlantic Imports' griddle patent (10660473), asserting that core features are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of references, including Williams and May/Best, to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenged North Atlantic Imports' cooking appliance patent on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be obvious based on the prior art references. This moves the dispute toward trial preparation in District Court.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 B2 unpatentable under both § 102 and § 103. The Board rejected the patent owner's narrow claim constructions, finding them inconsistent with intrinsic evidence, and concluded that prior art references (Goldenberg, Rosenberg) anticipated or rendered the claims obvious.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Office's decision to reject its patent application concerning a gene sequence designed to increase plant biomass. The appellant argued that the rejections were based on misconceptions regarding claim scope, subject matter eligibility (3j), and inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School Nand Teachers Training College v.Rajneesh Arora And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a joint application regarding the settlement between The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School and Rajneesh Arora. As part of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw their impugned trademark (No. 1519967) registered in Class 41. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 also withdrew oppositions filed against the Petitioner's trademark applications (Nos. 2825545 and 2825546). The Court directed the Trademark Office to process these withdrawals expeditiously, confirming that both parties remain bound by the settlement terms.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain & Anr
Pidilite Industries Ltd. sought the rectification and cancellation of a respondent's trademark ('POMA-EX KIWKHEAL') under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their well-known mark 'FEVIKWIK'. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Pidilite could not claim a monopoly over the generic element 'KWIK' or its variations. Furthermore, the court noted that the rectification application must stand on its own merits and cannot rely solely on prior injunctions granted in separate infringement suits.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited against Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'Western Choice' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'Officer's Choice.' This crucial ruling immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling alcoholic beverages using the infringing label. Furthermore, the order mandates a structured process for the disposal of existing stock while the main suit proceeds.
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v.Ldd Bioscience Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.
Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding procedural remedies against decisions of the Rapporteur concerning objections (Einspruch) under Rule 19 RoP. The appellants (Netgear entities) challenged a procedural order from the first instance dated December 11, 2023, in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989. The Court of Appeal addressed the proper procedural pathway for challenging the Rapporteur's decisions on objections, clarifying the interplay between Rule 333.1 RoP review by the panel and Rule 220.2/220.3 RoP appeals.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order which concluded that its subject patent lacked inventive step. The appellant argued that the subject application claimed improvements over an earlier granted patent (Patent No. 327649) and sought conversion into a patent of addition under Section 54 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found merit in this submission.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appellant filed an auxiliary request proposing amended claims for their patent application. These amendments were necessitated by limitations granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The court addressed issues related to prior art and whether the subject application constitutes a method of treatment.
Nymox Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Nymox Corporation filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on grounds related to novelty, inventive step, and subject matter limitations under the Patents Act, 1970.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's issuance of a pre-grant hearing notice, arguing that it had not been provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opposers. The court found this procedural lapse and set aside the notice.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,212,146 after reaching a settlement. The motion cites statutory authority for termination and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn and patent holder Intent IQ (AlmondNet) reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,715,878, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB granted Roku’s motion to join its inter partes review with Meta’s pending IPR, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23 of the ’878 patent on the same 103 grounds used in the earlier proceeding.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Roku challenges Intent IQ's patent 10715878 in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references (Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, Hahn, Xu, Gerace) to establish obviousness across various technical features related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The IPR petition against Intent IQ's '878 patent failed entirely, as the Board found no unpatentability for any challenged claim. The petitioner (Roku) argued obviousness over multiple prior art combinations related to targeted advertising using IP addresses.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's hearing notice regarding its patent application, arguing that it was not provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opponents. The court found that the procedure was flawed due to this omission.
L Oreal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
L Oreal appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 4652/DELNP/2013) for a process using thiopyridinone compounds. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider expert reports or properly analyze prior art under the Patents Act, 1970.
Ceat Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed Ceat Limited's appeal challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'FARMAX'. The court found that the appellant failed to adequately explain a significant delay in filing the appeal, rendering the condonation plea specious. Furthermore, on the merits, the court held that 'FARMAX' was structurally and phonetically similar to existing marks ('FORMAX' and 'FARMOX') registered for related goods (vehicles/tractors), creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Puma Se v.Gajari Online Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Puma Se against Gajari Online Services Private Limited, ordering the variation of the respondent's registered trademark (No. 3685326). The court accepted the petitioner's argument that the 'leaping lion' device within the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Puma's well-known 'leaping cat' device. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the leaping lion element from the trademark while allowing the word 'GAJARI' to remain.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Passiflora Pharmaceuticals
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco have settled with Cobblestone Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over the ’802 patent covering IEEE 802.11n technology.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against its MPEG‑1 video‑encoding patent, asserting that the Board abused discretion because the prior art discloses the claimed identifier‑resetting feature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Nokia’s video‑decoding patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board misapplied MPEG‑1 and Kim disclosures, which describe encoder outputs, not the decoder resetting required by the claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision upheld the Petitioner's challenge of nine claims based on obviousness in wireless communication technology. The Board accepted that prior art disclosures, including IEEE standards and Shearer, support the claimed dual-frequency transmission structure.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for the patent covering video coding methods related to grouping image frames. The petitioner successfully argued that the claims are obvious over prior art references like MPEG-1, Yagasaki, and Kim. This decision sets a precedent regarding how standard technical specifications can teach complex encoding mechanisms.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
M/S SUMOTEK INNOVATION PVT LTD v.Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd
M/S Sumotek Innovation Pvt Ltd (Appellant No. 1) filed a suit seeking declaration of rights and permanent injunction against Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd (Respondent No. 2) for using their patented technology (Patent No. 208216). The appeal challenged the Trial Court's rejection of the interim injunction application, which was based on lack of locus standi. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the appellant might have locus standi, they did not establish a prima facie case for an injunction due to the patent nearing its expiry.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The rejection was based on various objections including lack of novelty and insufficiency of disclosure. The High Court found that the Controller erred by falling back on earlier claims after the applicant had made amendments, without issuing a proper hearing notice regarding the new objection (Sec. 59).
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.
Abhishek Kumar Goyal v.M/S Diyaa Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by the appellant against a Hearing Officer's decision in a trademark opposition case concerning detergent products. The court found that the original officer erred by comparing the respondent's mark with only the appellant's word mark, ignoring the appellant's prior device mark which was on record and presented during hearings. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh, de novo hearing.
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited v.Mr.Bean Trampoline Park/Mr.Been Trampoline Park
Tiger Aspect Kids And Family Limited successfully obtained leave from the Bombay High Court to proceed with a commercial IP suit against Mr.Bean Trampoline Park. The petitioner, owner of the 'Mr.Bean' character and associated trademarks/copyrights, alleged infringement by the respondent operating under similar names and marks. The court granted permission, finding that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Mumbai, thereby establishing jurisdiction despite the park being located elsewhere.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Osaka University, Healios K.K
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. EP3056564, owned by Healios K.K. and Osaka University, brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, addressing procedural matters in preparation for the oral hearing. Key decisions included confirming the parties' maintained requests, addressing the status of parallel EPO opposition proceedings (with defendants declining a stay), and admitting the second declaration (D21) into the proceedings subject to conditions on the defendants' reply.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This case concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. EP3056563, owned by Healios K.K., Riken, and Osaka University, with Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine as the claimant. Following an interim conference held on 13 March 2024 via video conference, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural decisions on the admissibility of evidence and the value of the dispute. The court admitted a second declaration (D18) into the proceedings subject to conditions, and set the value of the dispute at 4,000,000 EUR for the purpose of applying the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The Board granted Samsung Electronics’ motion to join an existing IPR against Intent IQ’s ’878 patent, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23. The joinder was found timely and without prejudice, consolidating the proceedings with the Meta Platforms IPR.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit challenging the PTAB’s finding that multiple claims of U.S. Patent 10,734,481 are obvious. The appeal focuses on alleged errors in claim construction, obviousness analysis, and consideration of secondary factors.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB held that all 26 challenged claims of Greenthread’s ’222 patent are unpatentable as obvious, based on prior art references Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. Monolithic Power Systems prevailed over the patent owner’s arguments on privity and licensing.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging 18 claims of Intent IQ's patent (US 10,715,878) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claims are predictable combinations of prior art references like Baig, Laidlaw, and Xu in the field of cross-device tracking.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's patent on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) in a semiconductor device context. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed graded dopant profiles were rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged Greenthread's semiconductor patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing that key claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board instituted the challenge after finding compelling evidence of unpatentability based on prior art references including Kawagoe and Onoda.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the semiconductor device claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references including Kawagoe, Onoda, and Nishizawa. The Board has instituted the case, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision rejecting the petitioner's challenge to claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 10715878. The Board found that the evidence failed to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103, upholding the patent owner’s rights regarding targeted advertising methods.
Waycool Food Products Private Limited v.Cheedalla Gopinath, Aditya Rice Enterprises, Sree KVR Industries
Waycool Food Products Private Limited filed a civil suit against several defendants alleging passing off, copyright infringement, and misuse of its distinctive trade dress and logo in the packed rice market. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for the alleged violations. Ultimately, both parties reached a Memorandum of Compromise on February 17, 2024, leading to the court decreeing the suit while noting that the plaintiff had waived the claim for monetary damages.
Sulphur Mills Limited v.Dharmaj Crop Guard Limited & Anr.
Sulphur Mills Limited sought an interlocutory injunction against several defendants, alleging infringement of its Indian Patent IN 282429 for a 'Novel Agricultural Composition.' The plaintiff argued that their composition offered significant advantages over existing fertilizers, such as faster sulphate conversion and compatibility with modern irrigation. However, the court found that the defendants had successfully established a credible challenge to the patent's validity on the grounds of obviousness based on extensive prior art.
BASF SE v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
BASF SE appealed the Patent Office's order rejecting its patent application for an 'Auxiliary spring having axially running contour elements'. The rejection was based on various objections, including procedural and technical ones. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the cosmetic objection should not deny the applicant their rights, and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing.
Puma Se v.K.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, arguing that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh board. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the independent duty to assess its merit.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
International pharmaceutical companies (Petitioners) challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent. They argued that the Board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by them under Rule 60, due to inaction by the Patent Controller.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco’s IPR against Video Solutions’ video‑encoding patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director Review, alleging the Board ignored evidence, introduced new arguments, and misapplied the Fintiv compelling‑merits standard.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,425,817, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking business‑confidential treatment separate from the public patent file.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems and Video Solutions settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,649,426, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,649,426 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco and Video Solutions jointly requested confidentiality for their settlement agreement and moved to terminate IPR2024-00695 concerning patent 8,649,426.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board was urged to terminate based on public policy favoring settlement and the lack of any merits decision.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One and Hulu filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement with Implicit confidential and to end the IPR over patent 8,056,075. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. §317 and related regulations.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267. They jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Chris Hoff of Barnes & Thornburg filed a Director Review request on behalf of VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. after the Board instituted IPR2024-00695 against Cisco Systems. The owner contends the Board’s sua sponte arguments merit a higher‑level review.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo challenged Ericsson's patent on IMSI encryption technologies before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on combinations of Nair and Forsberg, along with 3GPP standards, to demonstrate lack of non-obviousness. This petition asserts that existing knowledge made the claimed security enhancements predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of patent 8649426 owned by VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references Perlman and Oguz teach known solutions for reducing video encoding latency, rendering the claimed methods unpatentable.