IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 102 of 218 · 6,517 total
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘254 patent, asserting that the Fujiki publication renders the claims obvious under §103 and that no discretionary denial applies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging KP Innovations’ U.S. Patent 10,499,168, asserting that claims 18‑21 are anticipated or obvious over earlier camera‑carousel and dual‑camera mobile phone references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR petition against CamelBak Products regarding mouthpiece and cap assemblies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that petitioner failed to meet the statutory threshold for institution, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's second IPR petition against Yangtze Memory's 3D memory patent (10,879,254), citing the overlap of asserted prior art knowledge with a previously instituted review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Jumio Corporation's IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11,157,606). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding obviousness over prior art references like Derakhshani and Zhang.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against KP Innovations was denied institution by the PTAB, despite arguments of anticipation and obviousness. The Board cited concerns over inefficient use of time and resources to decline institution, though a dissent argued for prevailing likelihood.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Anr. v.Voiceage Evs Llc & Anr.
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. IN 322739 under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing smartphones, expressed concern over potential wrongful enforcement of this patent by the respondent. The court accepted notice and granted both respondents six weeks to file their respective replies.
Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
ITC Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
ITC Limited filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 8, 2024. The original order rejected a post-grant opposition filed by ITC against Patent No. 377333 and denied relief for patent revocation.
Asian Paints Limited v.John Doe And Others
Asian Paints Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court granted orders directing various parties—including Domain Name Registrars, banks, and mobile service providers—to suspend specific infringing websites and freeze associated bank accounts. This decisive order aims to immediately halt the sale of counterfeit products using the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark across e-commerce platforms.
Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court overturned a trademark refusal order in favor of Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd. The appeal was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, as the appellant claimed they were never properly served with the Show Cause Notice before the Examiner's hearing. Citing established legal precedents, the court held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration after granting due process.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its reply and annexes related to European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants, comprising multiple Xiaomi entities, Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their legal representatives across parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain license agreement and negotiation information as confidential while restricting access to specified legal representatives and approved personnel, rejecting the more expansive requests of both parties.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court ordered the referral of a counterclaim for revocation and the corresponding patent amendment request to the Central Chamber Paris. The court reasoned that since nearly all attacks against the patent in suit (EP 4 074 373) were already being pursued in a prior central revocation action filed by the first defendant, efficiency considerations favored having the Central Chamber decide on the counterclaim as well. The defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, change of language, and the advanced stage of the central proceedings were rejected.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) to extend the deadline for filing their Duplik (reply) in a patent infringement case involving EP 3 024 163. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's Replik (rejoinder) was filed with numerous redactions serving as placeholders for later submissions, preventing them from preparing a complete response. The court held that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' is impermissible, but as an exception, ruled that the Duplik deadline had not yet begun to run.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_219/2023)
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation regarding information contained in its unredacted reply and annexes, particularly relating to patent license agreements and negotiations. The defendants, multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, contested the scope of the proposed confidentiality regime, seeking broader access for their attorneys in parallel proceedings. The court issued a final order classifying certain information as confidential, limiting access to specified persons, and rejecting further requests beyond the preliminary order.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Mullen Industries, finding that parallel district‑court litigation and weak petition merits justified the discretionary denial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Mullen’s 2015 patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial standards and ignored a binding Sotera stipulation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung and Google's request for rehearing of the Director Review decision in IPR2025-00018, leaving the earlier institution order in place.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries has requested Director Review of IPR2025-00019 and related cases. The PTAB has limited the petitioner’s response to five pages and a five‑day deadline, prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).
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.