IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 115 of 218 · 6,517 total
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that 33 out of 37 challenged claims were unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. Key findings included the rejection of Petitioner's argument regarding 'hermetically sealed' meaning waterproof, and successful challenges using multiple prior art combinations like Howell-596/Howell-833/Blum-741.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information (R.262A RoP) in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order issued by the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order unnecessary when the same information is contained in another document lodged in the appeal. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Curio Bioscience's application for a new order restricting access to confidential information under R.262A RoP in the appeal proceedings. The court held that a non-appealed R.262A order from the Court of First Instance continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, making a new protective order superfluous when the same information is already protected. The Registry was instructed to grant access to the unredacted Statement of response only to the persons named in the existing CFI order of 11 March 2024.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a request to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the Board review.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over a magnetic‑connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 and jointly moved to withdraw the inter partes review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against ParkerVision’s ’528 mixed‑signal chip patent, covering 30 claims, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel TI IPR.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The IPRs concerning Patent 8,924,543 were terminated after Verizon Wireless and other carriers reached a settlement with Headwater Research. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, and AT&T have settled with Headwater Research and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR covering patent 8,924,543, ending the proceeding before any merits decision.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA filed an IPR challenging ParkerVision's patent claims, arguing that Claim 14 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts obviousness based on combinations of prior art references related to signal processing and RF down-conversion.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed a Petition challenging key claims of GoPro's patent covering horizon leveling and video stabilization techniques. The petitioner asserts that these claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Thomason, Pacurariu, Watanabe, Voss, and Derbanne.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA et al. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, challenging 21 claims related to retail inventory management. The petition asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over various combinations of prior art references using computer vision techniques.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless filed an IPR petition challenging 40 claims of a network service plan provisioning system, asserting obviousness over prior art references Poh, Maes, and Burnett. The challenge centers on whether combining these existing technologies would motivate the claimed dynamic policy updates in wireless networks.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision challenges GoPro's '413 patent claims 1-20 under § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed non-uniform image scaling techniques are obvious combinations of existing prior art, specifically citing Meulen and Chao. This petition targets core functionality in panoramic image processing.
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.