IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 105 of 159 · 4,764 total
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found that claims 1-7, 12-17, and 19-23 were unpatentable over prior art (Coffman/Kennewick/Lee) based on obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner's view that 'synchronize' only requires updating context information without duplicating entry order.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims of Patent 8,270,578 B2 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found that prior art references (Wang, Dua, Yong) taught the subject matter through obvious combinations.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The decision hinged on the Petitioner successfully demonstrating that prior art (Koebler) disclosed all elements of the claimed invention, while also clarifying claim terms regarding sensor data analysis.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent No. 8,786,133 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential. The motion invokes statutory confidentiality provisions and cites prior Board precedent.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,224,563 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing settlement and lack of merit decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence in response to Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board’s earlier decision was proper and the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of the final written decisions in IPR2024-00539 and four related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11253719, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light and Joovv have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,253,719 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies defends its 5G random‑access patent against an IPR petition by AT&T and partners, arguing that the cited Lee1 and Lee2 references do not disclose the claimed power‑control features. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID reached a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s final decision in IPR2024-00539. They argue the Board improperly allowed the patent owner to incorporate arguments by reference, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the petitioners.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc. challenged Joovv, Inc.'s patent (11253719) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references including Dijkstra and Norwood to demonstrate obviousness in photobiomodulation therapy systems.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent (7,224,563) at the PTAB, arguing that multiple claims are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that discretionary denial was unwarranted, allowing the IPR proceeding to move forward.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET filed an IPR challenging InfoExpress's patent 8051460, arguing claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petition centers on network access control architecture, using Krantz and Herrmann as key prior art references.
Mito Red Light, Inc. v.Joovv, Inc.
Mito Red Light, Inc.'s challenge against Joovv, Inc.'s light therapy patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish unpatentability under § 103 using references Dijkstra and Norwood.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully challenged MOSAID's patent (7224563) in the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Tam and Huard.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T Mobility and others successfully petitioned to challenge Daingean Technologies' patent claims related to random access procedures. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references Lee1 and Lee2 for claims 4, 5, 6, and 8.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The patent relates to random access procedures in LTE/5G apparatuses and involved significant claim construction regarding power ramping functions.
Dupont Industrial Biosciences Usa Llc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenges the order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a divisional patent application (No. 202118031579). The Appellant argues that the divisional application clearly demonstrates distinct claims, contrary to the Deputy Controller's finding.
Pharma Mar, S.A. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharma Mar, S.A. filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its Patent Application No. 202117032003 for "Anti-Cancer Compounds" by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court accepted notice and listed the matter for further hearing.
The Indian Hotels Company Limited v.Shivgyan Developers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint settlement application between The Indian Hotels Company Limited (Plaintiff) and Shivgyan Developers Private Limited (Defendant). To avoid protracted litigation regarding the well-known trademark 'VIVANTA', both parties mutually agreed to resolve the dispute. Under the terms, the Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff's sole ownership of VIVANTA, committed to using the alternative mark 'VIVIAN,' and undertook to withdraw four pending trademark applications related to the disputed brand.
Amit Sood v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Amit Sood, granting cancellation of the mark 'ROSHAN' (No. 1324435) registered by the respondents under Class 42. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the name since the 1960s, establishing extensive goodwill in the photography sector. This judgment underscores the principle that prior use and established reputation outweigh subsequent trademark registration when seeking cancellation.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala Technologies sought to have the court decline jurisdiction and reject the revocation action as inadmissible, or alternatively to stay proceedings pending a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice in parallel German revocation appeal proceedings. Nokia opposed the preliminary objection and the requests for a stay. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat), presided over by judge-rapporteur Maximilian Haedicke, rejected the preliminary objection in its order of 2 May 2024.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an order of the Local Division Milan that revoked provisional measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises, and ordered the restitution of gathered evidence to the respondents. The Court held that enforcement of the restitution order pending the appeal would render the appeal largely ineffective, as the return of evidence would be difficult to reverse if the appeal succeeded.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network challenges the validity of patent 8621539, arguing that its claims are obvious by combining prior art from Hou, Konschak, and Dapper. The petitioner asserts that known techniques in broadband cable networking render the claimed methods predictable improvements.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (7,925,426) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claims related to route optimization and power management are obvious. The PTAB found merits compelling and decided to institute the case based on favorable Fintiv factors.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
NJOY challenges JUUL's e-cigarette patent (US 11,606,981) on multiple grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Petition argues that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features of the vaping device readily apparent. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation and ITC investigations between the parties.
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.