Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 256 of 424

patent denied · Jun 15, 2024

BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.

· PGR2024-00036

Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
patent · Jun 14, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01026

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
patent denied · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01009

The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
patent · Jun 14, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01025

Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 14, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01025

Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
patent · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01009

Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
patent · Jun 14, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01024

Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
patent null · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01009

Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
patent null · Jun 14, 2024

Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG

· IPR2024-00975

Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
patent instituted · Jun 14, 2024

Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.

· IPR2024-01025

Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
patent denied · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01008

The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
patent denied · Jun 14, 2024

Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson

· IPR2024-01009

Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 14, 2024

Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India

Karnataka High Court · 128134259

Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 14, 2024

ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP v.THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR

Calcutta High Court · 137921847

The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 14, 2024

Srinivas S Devathi v.Union of India

Karnataka High Court · 111071706

Srinivas S Devathi filed a writ petition alleging that the USPTO, acting as an International Search Authority (ISA), fabricated an International Search Report (ISR) for his patent application (US Patent No. 8910998 B1). He claimed this fraud led to the rejection of his patent rights globally. The petitioner sought directions from the Union of India to initiate legal action against USPTO and WIPO. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the claims required extensive evidence and were outside writ jurisdiction, and given the prior requirement for consent under Section 86 of the CPC, the present petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jun 14, 2024

Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks

Bombay High Court · 38489320

The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 13, 2024

Professor Jayashankar v.Monsanto Technology LLC

Madras High Court · P37909659

Professor Jayashankar filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681, granted to Monsanto Technology LLC, under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petition was heard by the Madras High Court on June 13, 2024. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite being served notice, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
patent · Jun 13, 2024

Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001448

This order concerns procedural matters in three parallel patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim involving European Patent EP 2 568 724 and related patents. The defendants, including multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, requested an extension of deadlines for their reply submissions, rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024. The order also addresses ongoing issues regarding the confidentiality regime, particularly the number of persons authorized to access confidential information on the defendants' side, following the plaintiff's filing of redacted replies and supplementary submissions concerning FRAND-related comparison licenses.
patent · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

· IPR2024-01027

Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
patent terminated or settled · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

· IPR2024-01027

Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
patent · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01014

Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
patent · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

· IPR2024-01027

Court decision.
patent instituted · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01014

The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.
patent null · Jun 13, 2024

Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation

· IPR2024-01027

Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
patent null · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01014

Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
patent instituted · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01014

Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
patent final · Jun 13, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.

· IPR2024-01014

The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
patent defendant favorable · Jun 13, 2024

Professor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University v.Monsanto Technology LLC

Madras High Court · 150902046

Professor Jayashankar, representing Telangana State Agricultural University, filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology LLC. The petition aimed to challenge the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Madras High Court on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
patent interim order · Jun 13, 2024

Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)

Bombay High Court · 63420132

Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
patent dismissed · Jun 13, 2024

Ashish Anilkumar Desai (M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries) v.M/S.Maas Herbals Private Limited

Madras High Court · 140374226

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai against M/S. Maas Herbals Private Limited. The petition sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'LICYL' from the register, citing issues with Registration No.2089321. Crucially, the court noted that despite multiple opportunities and service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear for hearing. Consequently, the case was dismissed purely on grounds of non-prosecution.
1 •••255256257•••424
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →