IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 105 of 218 · 6,517 total
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Headwater Research LLC's patent covering network capacity management and traffic prioritization. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Fadell, and Freund.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
This petition challenges patent validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the claimed invention is obvious in light of prior art references Rao and Fadell. The challenge covers a broad scope of claims ranging from Claim 1 to Claim 159.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
A coalition of tech giants and wireless carriers, including Google LLC and Verizon Wireless, has filed an IPR petition against Headwater Research's '541 patent. The petitioners challenge the validity based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), citing combinations of prior art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned for institution of its obviousness challenge against BuzzBallz's beverage container patent (11932441). The Board found that the design application introduced new matter, making the claims eligible for review.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully instituted its IPR against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC's patent (9636649) covering polymer composites. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across all 23 claims based on multiple prior art combinations.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja's IPR challenge against Dyson regarding hair styling attachments was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim based on obviousness over prior art references.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's IPR challenge against Headwater Research failed at the institution stage, with the PTAB denying the petition. The Board found that Google did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability over prior art Rao and 6 US 8,028,060 B1 for claims 79 and 83.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC successfully secured institution in its IPR against Headwater Research LLC regarding wireless network capacity management claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art references Rao and Fadell.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging five claims related to channel estimation in MIMO systems. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing against obviousness grounds over multiple prior art references.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding patent EP 2 697 391. After 10x Genomics appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) that partly dismissed its application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience, 10x subsequently requested to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and ordered that 10x, as the unsuccessful party, bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Zuventus Healthcare Limited v.Zaventis Health Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Zuventus Healthcare Limited against Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ZAVENTIS HEALTH CARE,' was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZUVENTUS,' leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This order allows the suit to proceed while restraining the defendant from using any deceptively similar branding in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for its reply, covering information about prior and ongoing licensing negotiations and internal business considerations. The Xiaomi defendants did not contest the need for protection but requested modifications to the provisional order, which the court largely granted in a consolidated final order.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies. The order provides technical and legal guidance to the parties on issues relating to infringement (features 1.1, 1.3.2, and 1.3.3), validity (novelty attacks based on prior art documents FBD-T11a, T11b, T13, and T14), and the plaintiff's request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The parties were given until July 19, 2024 to submit comments on the points raised.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against ten Xiaomi entities. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for filing their rejoinder and for responding to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications, arguing that the plaintiff's reply still contained redactions. The court partially granted the request, ruling that the deadline for the rejoinder only begins to run upon service of a fully unredacted reply, but rejected the requests to alter or extend the deadlines relating to the nullity counterclaim and patent amendment applications.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163, brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities. The order addresses Panasonic's request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A RoP) in connection with its application for an order to produce documents against itself, and the defendants' requests to modify the provisional confidentiality order issued on 09/05/2024.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging that Abbott's FreeStyle Libre 2 continuous glucose monitoring system infringed European Patent EP 3 435 866 B1. Abbott filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court held that the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art and revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissing all of DexCom's infringement claims and ordering DexCom to bear the costs of the proceedings.
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.