Patent Cases

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

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

Page 321 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 23, 2024

Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta

The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.

patent defendant favorable · Jan 23, 2024

Ms Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar Khatri

Delhi District Court · 157904669

The plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit against its former employee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, alleging that he breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business secrets and client information to a competitor. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the alleged irreparable loss.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 23, 2024

Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 156360022

The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 23, 2024

Mimozax Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Patent Office Chennai

Madras High Court · 191058801

Mimozax Co. appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-obesity composition derived from Acacia, which was refused based on several grounds including reliance on undisclosed prior art. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide all relevant materials to the appellant and emphasized the doctrine of fairness in patent proceedings.

patent · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

patent · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.

patent · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.

patent denied · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2024-00462

The USPTO denied DISH Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' video‑compression patent.

patent · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2024-00462

DISH Network seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on its cable‑network patent, arguing the panel misapplied obviousness standards and acted inconsistently with a similar case.

patent instituted · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2024-00462

DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.

patent null · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.

patent denied · Jan 22, 2024

DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC

· IPR2024-00462

DISH Network LLC's IPR petition against Entropic Communications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's argument that combining prior art systems would render the patent obvious.

patent instituted · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

Dropbox successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Motion Offense LLC's patent, challenging claims 17-21 based on obviousness. The Board found that Dropbox demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several claims, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding prior art disclosure and prosecution history.

patent final · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00287

The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.

patent final · Jan 22, 2024

Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC

· IPR2024-00286

The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.

patent pending · Jan 22, 2024

SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 84294545

SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 22, 2024

Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 150526220

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.

patent · Jan 20, 2024

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001634

This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001635

In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-19) under reference UPC-001635, Dolby International AB appeared in dispute with HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering

· IPR2024-00475

Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).

patent · Jan 19, 2024

Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC

· IPR2024-00463

Ilooda and Serendia have filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda’s participation in an IPR over U.S. Patent 10,869,812, citing a settlement of their dispute. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the parties also request the settlement be kept confidential.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 19, 2024

Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC

· IPR2024-00400

Apple’s IPR against THL Holding’s patent 11,350,246 concluded with an adverse judgment after the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims. The Board entered judgment against claims 20‑27 and terminated the proceeding.

patent instituted · Jan 19, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00478

Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent (9430042) in an IPR petition, asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argued that the claimed haptic feedback system was rendered invalid by combinations of prior art references like Ichinose/Levin and Rosenberg-I/Goldenberg.

1 •••320 321 322•••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 →