IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 109 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
Dharmaj Technologies v.Mac Swin Technologies
Dharmaj Technologies filed a suit against Mac Swin Technologies alleging infringement and passing off related to its Registered Design No. 253469, which pertains to a diamond processing machine. The dispute centered on the defendant's manufacturing and sale of machines bearing identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's design. Following an undertaking by the defendant discontinuing the use of the impugned design, the court allowed the suit to the extent of granting permanent injunctions against future infringement.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
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.