IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 111 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The Board upheld the validity of Oura Health's smart ring patent against Samsung Electronics in a Final Written Decision. The Panel found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art combining physical activity monitoring and wearable input devices.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) against the smart ring patent. The Board upheld the validity of the claims, finding that the combination of prior art references required non-obvious structural overhauls and lacked proper nexus to the claimed invention.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' decision dated March 5, 2024, which refused to grant a Patent under Section 15 of the Act. The appellant also filed an application seeking condonation of eight days delay in filing the appeal.
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited against Ashok Kumar and others. The court found a prima facie case that the respondents were illegally imitating, impersonating, and infringing upon the petitioner's registered trademarks ('Cordelia Cruises') and copyrighted material related to its cruise services. The order specifically restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's marks across all media platforms and directed the blocking of an offending website until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724, relating to LTE mobile communication technology. The court issued directions and questions to the parties regarding claim interpretation under Rule 13(1)(n) RoP, the patent proprietor's response to the nullity counterclaim, the strict preclusion rule under Rule 30.2 RoP for patent amendments, and the legal interest (Rechtsschutzbedürfnis) for the defendants' FRAND counterclaim seeking determination of license rates.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231, requested an extension of time to file its rejoinder to the reply to the defence to revocation until 29 July 2024. The Court rejected the request, holding that the introduction of new prior art documents by the claimants and the existence of a separate counterclaim for revocation before the Hamburg Local Division did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of the statutory deadline.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others (UPC_CFI_457/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 490 258 B1, a HEVC-essential patent held by Dolby International AB and pooled through Access Advance LLC. The court addressed the plaintiff's request to extend the deadlines for filing its reply to the defendants' statement of defense and its defense to the counterclaim for revocation, which had been impacted by a confidentiality protection request (R. 262A RoP) filed by the defendants regarding their FRAND defense and license negotiations with Access Advance. The court extended both deadlines uniformly to September 1, 2024, finding that the plaintiff needed time to consult with Access Advance employees who were initially excluded from access to the confidential filings.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their PTAB IPR dispute over a photovoltaic inverter patent and jointly moved to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA and CyboEnergy have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,786,133 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR, ending the proceeding before institution.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al. v.CyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patent on touch interface technology. The petitioner argues the claims are obvious, combining known elements related to duration-based gestures and tactile feedback from prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging Smith Interface Technologies' patents related to dynamic background appearance changes on touch screens. The core argument is that these claims are obvious, relying on combinations of prior art such as Hackborn and Westerman. This challenges the scope of protection for advanced gesture recognition technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC was instituted by the PTAB, confirming that prior art references could teach all limitations of key gesture recognition claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on 17 claims related to touch screen interaction in mobile devices.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC regarding touch screen interface claims. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This paves the way for a full trial on key mobile computing patents.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned to institute an Inter Partes Review against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC's patent 10656755. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 claims challenged).
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found that the combination of Hackborn's live wallpaper concept with Westerman's gesture recognition methods rendered several claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Claims 1 and 23 were deemed unpatentable based on this combination.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed an order rejecting the grant of a patent application (No. 2559/CHENP/2012) on grounds of lack of inventive step. The Appellant argued that the Controller failed to provide proper consideration or independent reasons for concluding the invention was obvious in light of prior art and common general knowledge.
Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited v.Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.
The Madras High Court judgment in India Cements Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd. (though the parties listed are Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited vs Samavist Energy Solutions Private Ltd.) resulted in the dismissal of the trademark infringement suit. The plaintiff, Chennai Super Kings Cricket Limited, chose to withdraw the case on June 27, 2024, before a final judgment could be delivered. This action effectively ended the litigation regarding the use of the deceptively similar mark 'NOIDA SUPER KINGS' against the defendant.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The applicant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, sought to restrict access to two license agreements (Agreement A & B) submitted as evidence in infringement proceedings against Microsoft Corporation, claiming they contained business secrets of licensees. Microsoft objected on grounds of inadmissibility, arguing the applicant's representative lacked independence under the Code of Conduct. The Court rejected the inadmissibility objection and granted the application, restricting access to the agreements to Microsoft attorneys and directors with a legitimate need.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 covering an antibody for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), sought a preliminary injunction against multiple Amgen entities to stop the marketing of BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab). While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, particularly given the unresolved question of claim construction regarding SEQ ID NO:4 and the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis to prevent the marketing of Epysqli®, a biosimilar of Alexion's Soliris® (eculizumab), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1 relating to antibodies binding complement component 5 (C5) for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria. While the court found that infringement of claim 2 could be established, it dismissed the application for provisional measures because it was not convinced with sufficient certainty that the patent was valid, given the likelihood that the EPO opposition division might revoke the patent.
Dolby International AB v.HP PPS Sverige AB and Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court allowed Access Advance LLC to intervene as an intervener (Streithelferin) on the side of the plaintiff Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 490 258 B1. The court held that Access Advance, as the administrator of the patent pool into which Dolby had contributed the patent-in-suit and which handles FRAND licensing of Dolby's HEVC portfolio, had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome, particularly because the HP defendants had raised a FRAND defense based on alleged inadequacies of Access Advance's license offers.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple filed an authorized response opposing Smith Interface’s Director Review request, arguing the PTAB correctly applied obviousness law to the touch‑and‑hold gesture combination. The Board’s factual findings and motivation‑to‑combine analysis were supported by extensive record evidence and expert testimony.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple challenges the obviousness finding of U.S. Patent 10,656,758 covering touch‑gesture menus. The patent owner requests Director Review, arguing the Board relied on hindsight and lacked a proper motivation for combining prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung successfully challenged Staton Techiya’s echo‑cancelling ear‑piece patent. The PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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.