IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 114 of 159 · 4,764 total
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board adopted a narrow construction of 'dummy source structure,' finding that the Petitioner met its burden for obviousness over Tessariol and Park. This paves the way for further litigation against the patent owner.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB Institution Decision regarding obviousness over Kim and Tessariol. The Board adopted the Petitioner's definition of 'surrounding' as 'encircling,' finding a reasonable likelihood that Micron will prevail against the patent.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS and FORTINET successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction regarding device reconfiguration while accepting the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Krantz and Herrmann.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1-3 unpatentable over Kim due to obviousness (103), while claims 4 and 5 were found patentable. The Board construed the key term 'surrounding' as meaning 'all around' or 'encircling.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB found claims 1–6 and 11–13 unpatentable over Tessariol, while finding them patentable over Park. The Board's decision hinged on claim construction, specifically defining 'dummy source structure' as one that does not function as a source to memory cells. This outcome significantly impacts the validity of the asserted claims in 3D Memory Devices (NAND).
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning the language of proceedings in a patent infringement dispute. Curio Bioscience Inc. appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance dated February 26, 2024, which had rejected Curio Bioscience's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2 697 391). The dispute arose in the context of a provisional measures application filed by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience before the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Court of Appeal addressed the application under Article 49(5) of the UPC Agreement regarding the use of the patent language as the language of proceedings.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics filed an IPR challenging Natera's prenatal‑testing patent. The parties settled before the Board could institute the trial, and the Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks limited disclosure and asserts no filing fee is due.
NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. v.Natera, Inc.
NeoGenomics and Natera have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,519,035 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided on institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit disclosure to parties with good cause.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo (via IQE PLC) petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 24 claims of Cornell’s ’360 epitaxial‑growth patent, asserting obviousness over six prior‑art references under §103. The petition stresses strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy favoring settlements.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Court decision.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo and Cornell Research Foundation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,250,360, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Qorvo, Inc. v.Cornell Research Foundation Inc.
Qorvo challenges 24 claims of a semiconductor fabrication patent (7250360) in an IPR petition, asserting that the claimed epitaxial growth and nucleation processes are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references including Urashima, Guo, Nagata, Keiper, and Manabe to demonstrate lack of novelty.
Pharaoh Energy Services, LLC v.Flex-Chem Holding Company, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Pharaoh Energy Services' petition to institute IPR proceedings against Flex-Chem for patent 9944843, citing a lack of compelling merits. The Board found that the cumulative weight of Fintiv factors and insufficient technical basis in the petitioner’s evidence led to the denial.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
Regency Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd v.Chowdhury Enterprise And Ors
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief concerning its registered mark "METRO" against the respondents. The court addressed procedural matters, granting the plaintiff leave to add prayers and confirming jurisdiction under specific legal provisions.
Alcon Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.
Oxular Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Oxular Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant an Indian Patent Application (No. 201817034819). The appellant argued that the invention disclosed a substantial technical advancement and economic significance, fulfilling the necessary criteria.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application (no. 202117034705) under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court first condoned a delay of 12 days in filing the appeal and subsequently issued notice to the respondent for submission.
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Immunovative Therapies, Ltd filed an appeal against objections raised by The Controller of Patents. The respondent completed submissions on Sections 10(4) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, requesting a hearing regarding objections under Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d).
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents to grant a patent titled 'Reversible 2-Dimensional Pre-/Post-Filtering for Lapped Biorthogonal Transform'. The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court ultimately held that the invention provided tangible benefits beyond ordinary computing functionality and was therefore patentable.
V.Lakshminarayanasamy & Suguna Lakshminarayanasamy v.Siva Bhaskaren & The Deputy Registrar, Trademark Registry, Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal or cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 1191299, which was registered in Siva Bhaskaren's name for goods like pressure cookers and fans. The court noted that the trademark's validity expired on April 10, 2023, as no renewal request had been filed within the ten-year period. Consequently, the petition seeking rectification became infructuous, leading to its closure.
Galatea Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents
Galatea Ltd. appealed a rejection by the Indian Patent Office regarding its national phase application for 'A method for evaluation of a gemstone'. The appeal addressed objections concerning lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and ambiguity in claim language. The Madras High Court ultimately set aside the impugned order, allowing the patent to proceed subject to specific amendments and deletions.
Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics Sarl v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 15/04/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1. Advanced Bionics AG Laubisrütistrasse 28 8712 Stäfa Swi
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,756,680 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,294,403 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB decision that allowed InfoExpress’s network‑security patent to survive. They argue the Board improperly accepted arguments incorporated by reference, violating USPTO rules.
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.