IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 218 · 6,517 total
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑23 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent 11,010,336, arguing obviousness over prior‑art database‑provisioning UIs and hyperconverged infrastructure. The petition also argues that the Board lacks discretionary grounds to deny institution.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Stratasys’s networked 3‑D‑printing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing against discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 24 claims of EscapeX’s ’687 patent covering social‑media engagement monetization. The petition argues obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and meets the statutory threshold for institution.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google successfully secured institution of IPR against EscapeX IP over a social networking patent, challenging 24 claims based on obviousness.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found Petitioner's arguments of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 sufficiently meritorious to proceed. The Board specifically noted that Claim 1 was likely unpatentable over Mazumder and Mori, adopting the petitioner’s definition of ordinary skill in the art.
GOOGLE LLC v.EscapeX IP LLC
Google LLC successfully invalidated EscapeX IP LLC's patent (10474687) in the PTAB, finding all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied on combinations of prior art references like Fuloria and Andler to demonstrate that the claimed content engagement systems were predictable advancements in social networking technology.
Mr. M. Anees Ahmed (M/s Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Ambur Briyani
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mr. M. Anees Ahmed, granting a permanent injunction against the respondent for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'STAR AMBUR BRIYANI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AMBUR STAR BRIYANI,' which is associated with his restaurant business. While the claim for destruction of infringing stock was rejected due to lack of evidence, the suit was partly decreed.
Dabur India Limited v.Ms Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Dabur India Limited's cancellation petition against a similar mark registered by Ms. Usha Proprietor Of Rs Industries. The court found that the impugned mark was confusingly and deceptively similar to Dabur's well-known trademark 'DABUR,' particularly given that both parties operate in the identical Class 3 goods (detergents, soaps, etc.). Citing prior use and established goodwill, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the infringing registration.
Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd v.Rspl Helathcare P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a District Judge's order that had granted an ex parte injunction against Sun Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd, restraining it from using the trademark 'PRUEASE'. The court set aside this restrictive interim order. Instead, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the original application filed by the respondents seeking injunctive relief, allowing both parties a chance to present their case.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In revocation proceedings concerning EP 2 794 928 B1, the Claimant (NanoString Technologies Europe Limited) sought release of a EUR 300,000 security for legal costs previously ordered under Rule 158 RoP. The Claimant argued it was now solvent following its acquisition by Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and that the first instance decision in its favor (patent revoked) eliminated any potential cost liability. The Court rejected the request, holding that the Claimant failed to provide information about its own independent financial position and that the first instance decision was not final as it remained subject to appeal.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
Curio Bioscience filed an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP seeking to stay an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide EUR 200,000 in security for legal costs. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Curio had not established the extreme urgency required under Rule 223.4 RoP, as it had merely claimed it would be forced to comply with a manifestly wrong order or face a default judgment.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Procedural Order
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB panel’s decision instituting inter partes review of eight claims of its 3‑D‑printer patent. The owner argues the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the Guidance Memorandum, warranting a denial of institution under § 314(a).
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that its broad stipulations block further invalidity attacks. The petitioner urges the Board to reject a discretionary denial and proceed with the review.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied petitions for review of institution decisions in three IPRs challenging Stratasys patents, including U.S. Patent 9,421,713. The denial leaves the institution decisions standing.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS moves to withdraw its IPR petition after a settlement in related Roku proceedings renders the challenge moot.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,094,236 before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Court decision.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS filed a motion to withdraw its IPR petition against VideoLabs' patent after related Roku IPRs were settled, rendering its joinder motions moot. The Board will decide on the withdrawal request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00250 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken over U.S. Patent 8,094,236. The motion argues that termination is appropriate given the early stage of the proceeding and public policy favoring settlement.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's request for post‑grant review of claims 1‑6 of U.S. Patent 11,854,612, finding the petitioner failed to show any claim was likely unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ petition for post‑grant review of Vervain’s NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger failed to meet the ‘more likely than not’ burden. The Board upheld the patent’s claims across all seven challenged claims.
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
LG Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑12 of U.S. Patent 9,578,384, arguing they are obvious over a combination of the Kim smart‑TV disclosure and publicly available Netflix UI videos, plus the Hunt and Hunleth patents. Two grounds are asserted under 35 U.S.C. §103(a). The petition also argues discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has petitioned an IPR against Stratasys' 3‑D‑printing patent covering purge‑tower printing, asserting obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236 covering conditional‑access and DRM bridging. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art patents and seeks institution of the review.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUSTek seeks an IPR to invalidate VideoLabs' 8,291,236 patent covering conditional access and DRM bridging, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as the Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu patents.
ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
ASUSTek has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of VideoLabs' U.S. Patent 8,291,236, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Russ patent. The petition also argues there is no discretionary denial basis.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of eight claims of NL Giken’s ’236 TV safety‑monitoring patent, alleging obviousness over several pre‑AIA references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted under the Fintiv framework.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of Vervain’s ‘300 NAND flash patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition seeks institution to streamline parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Google, Samsung and others have filed an IPR petition challenging Truesight’s ’300 patent covering on‑screen video chapter navigation. The petition asserts that prior‑art references Nishikawa, Angiolillo, Vahtola and Ackley render all 20 claims obvious. The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.