IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 218 · 6,517 total
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition challenging Patent No. 9,421,713 B2 based on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in additive manufacturing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Claim 1 is unpatentable as anticipated by prior art (Boyer).
LG ELECTRONICS, INC. et al. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO successfully convinced the PTAB that MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.'s claims related to VOD user interfaces were obvious over prior art references. The Board found that combining existing concepts from sources like TechnoBuffalo and Kim provided sufficient motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Thales v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Thales appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant patent for its application No. 8821/CHENP/2012, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on total non-application of mind, relying on copy-pasted reasoning and irrelevant prior art documents (D1, D2, D3). The High Court quashed the impugned order, finding violations of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ori-Plast Limited v.Molecor Tecnologia S.L.
Ori-Plast Limited sought an injunction against Molecor Tecnologia S.L., which had terminated a license agreement related to the use of the Molecor PVC-O System. The petitioner feared that the withdrawal of remote assistance would cause irreparable loss, while the respondent argued for immediate termination based on alleged breaches of confidentiality and reverse engineering.
M/s.Sri Modern Weigh Systems v.Nipro MACHOI P. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed appeals concerning the alleged deceptive similarity between the trademarks 'MACHOI' and 'MAKHOI'. The court accepted an undertaking from the appellants not to use 'MACHOI' or any remotely similar name in the future. Furthermore, the opposing party was directed to immediately apply for the cancellation of their registered trademark, which was deemed deceptively similar. This judgment provides a practical resolution through undertakings and administrative action rather than a definitive finding on infringement.
Disys India Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to grant registration for the mark 'DISYS'. The appeal argued that the refusal, based solely on phonetic similarity to another mark ('DISYSO'), failed to consider evidence of the appellant's long-standing use and acquired distinctiveness. The court found the original order was a non-speaking order, necessitating a remand back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application on its merits.
Super Smelters Ltd. v.Rekha Tayal &Anr.
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Super Smelters Ltd., a leading manufacturer of TMT Bars, in its application to rectify a trademark registration. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively identical and phonetically similar to the petitioner's established 'SUPER SHAKTI' brand. Crucially, the court noted a glaring error by the registrar who failed to consider the petitioner's prior registrations during the examination process. Consequently, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the impugned registration, affirming the petitioner's strong prima facie case and preventing consumer confusion.
Innovative Health Care v.Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed an Original Application filed by Innovative Health Care seeking to restrain Innovative Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. from using a deceptively similar trademark for medicinal preparations. The court decided to close the current application while granting the applicant full liberty to raise all its contentions in the main suit. This procedural step moves the dispute forward into the substantive litigation phase.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,805,687, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art streaming technologies. The petition also argues against discretionary denial, referencing Fintiv and the lack of a prior petition by the same party.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent (U.S. 10,805,687) on obviousness grounds, citing a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition argues no prior petition exists and includes a Fintiv stipulation to limit further challenges.
Lam Research Corp. v.Inpria Corporation
Lam Research has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Inpria's EUV lithography patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness issues. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s ‘697 patent covering low‑latency sports video and data streaming. The petition alleges obviousness over five prior‑art references and seeks institution of the review.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s live‑sports streaming patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and asking the PTAB to institute the review and cancel the claims.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited & Others
ICPillar LLC filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP3000239 against multiple ARM entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. Following a confidential mediation in the parallel US litigation and a settlement agreement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective claims and counterclaims. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, ordered full reimbursement of the security for costs, but reduced the court fee reimbursement from 60% to 40% due to the late stage of proceedings and substantial work already undertaken by the Court.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,865,291 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑8, 12‑19) are now subject to trial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on all nine challenged claims.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix filed a request for director review, urging the PTAB to deny Tessell’s IPR on grounds of unfair dealing, settled expectations, and prior art already examined. The petition argues that the inventors are attempting to profit twice from the same invention.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Petitioner Tessell, Inc. filed an authorized response opposing Nutanix, Inc.’s request to reverse the PTAB’s institution of IPR2025-00298. The brief argues no unfair dealing, cites settled expectations for early‑filed patents, and asserts that discretionary denial under §325(d) is improper.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. seeks rehearing of the Director’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel contrary to 35 U.S.C. §311(a) and Federal Circuit precedent. The petition asks the Board to reverse the denial and reinstate the institution order.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Nutanix successfully defended the Director’s denial of institution in an IPR against Tessell, arguing that the Director’s discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) is unbounded and that no right to institution exists. The Board denied Tessell’s request for rehearing.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis‑valve patent are unpatentable. Petitioner Imperative Care proved anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller and Garrison, with the Board emphasizing that the claimed filament must be flexible.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success. All challenged claims (1‑7, 9‑10, 15‑18, 20‑24) are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied Imperative Care’s petition to institute an IPR against Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 11,744,691, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not disclose the required negative‑pressure pump configuration.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
The IPRs challenging Kyocera’s patents were terminated after the parties reached a settlement, with the agreement kept confidential.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools entered into a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,241,776. Both parties jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, citing Board policy favoring settlement and the lack of a merits decision.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR 2025‑00262, ending the challenge to U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954 covering cutting‑tool technology.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR over patent 11,241,776.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,478,954, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,034,007 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00261, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c).
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.