IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 115 of 159 · 4,764 total
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 9,342,078. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding without a final written decision.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro have reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,649,909. They have filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing public‑policy support for settlement.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America and SitePro settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,342,078 before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted the termination, treating the settlement as confidential.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of Americas and SitePro entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over Patent No. 11,762,504, and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its antedating evidence against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, arguing the Board already considered all issues and that the petitioners forfeited new arguments. The Board’s prior finding that none of the references are prior art stands.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied the Director’s review of final written decisions in multiple IPRs, including Cisco’s challenge to InfoExpress’s patent 8,677,450 on network traffic management.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims related to user profile and settings transfer systems, arguing that prior art references anticipate or render them obvious. The petition was instituted by the Board, indicating strong initial grounds for challenge.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. v.SitePro, Inc.
The Integration Group of America, Inc. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,649,909 based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Cardamone, Almadi, and Abdallah. The petitioner argues that these references disclose every limitation of the challenged claims related to remote fluid handling control systems. This marks the initial challenge phase in a complex Oil and Gas technology dispute.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco Systems challenges InfoExpress's patent (8677450) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining Krantz and Herrmann prior art references provides a predictable solution for enhanced network security and access control policy enforcement.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Aptiv Services' IPR challenges against Microchip Technology regarding ESD protection circuits (Patent No. 7564665). The Board found the Petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, rejecting claims based on impermissible hindsight and insufficient explanation of prior art combinations.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. successfully petitioned to challenge Emerging Automotive LLC's patent (9171268) in a PTAB proceeding, leading to an institution decision. The challenges focus on claims related to vehicle profile management and cloud services under grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO and FORTINET successfully petitioned to challenge InfoExpress's network security patents, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings on all claims. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combining Krantz and Herrmann would render the challenged claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11, 13, 15, and 16 were anticipated by the prior art reference Xiao. While other combinations failed to meet obviousness standards due to insufficient rationale, the Board adopted a construction requiring a compatibility check during setting determination.
V.K.R. Venkatesan v.S.Athiappan
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against S.Athiappan, Proprietor of Chitra Enterprises, alleging infringement of his registered trademarks ('SIVAJI' and 'V.K.R. SIVAJI BRAND') and copyright over artistic works. The plaintiff sought perpetual injunctions to stop the use of deceptively similar marks like 'SIVAJI GOLD'. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the infringement claims, the plaintiff chose to withdraw the suit.
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 rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure, despite multiple pre-grant oppositions citing prior art. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order, directing that the patent proceed to grant after specific amendments were made to address clarity issues.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises
The Delhi High Court allowed Taco Bell Corp. to withdraw its rectification petition against Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises' trademark registration, provided the latter adheres to a binding undertaking. Tamoghna had previously initiated opposition proceedings against Taco Bell’s 'TACO SUPREME' mark despite limitations on their own registered device mark. The court accepted Tamoghna's commitment to cease all oppositions and cancellations related to 'TACO SUPREME', allowing the petition to be disposed of while preserving rights for future action in case of breach.
Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited v.Jona'S Cafe
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Paulsons Beauty And Fashion Private Limited, finding that Jona'S Cafe was infringing upon its registered trademark 'JONAH'S' and engaging in passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of 'JONA'S,' despite a minor alteration, was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark, especially given their proximity and identical business sector (food chain). Consequently, the court granted permanent injunctions and directed the defendant to pay damages based on profits earned.
Jabir Hussain Trading As M/S Hakeem Hotel v.Ali Asgar Trading As M/S. Hakeem Restaurant
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Jabir Hussain (M/S Hakeem Hotel) against a Commercial Court's decision to return its trademark infringement plaint. The appellant sought permanent injunction against the respondent for infringing and passing off their registered trademarks in North West Delhi. The High Court ruled that since the plaintiff pleaded both existing operations via e-commerce platforms within Delhi's jurisdiction, and an imminent threat of physical expansion into Delhi, a valid cause of action existed within the territorial limits. Consequently, the Commercial Court's order returning the plaint was set aside, and the suit was restored.
Meenu (Trading As M/S Albro Industries) v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications filed by Meenu (M/S Albro Industries) in an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' order. The court condoned a 11-day delay in filing the Memorandum of Appeal and allowed the appellant exemption from submitting original documents. The core dispute, concerning whether a counter statement was properly served during opposition proceedings for the 'AIRODO' trademark, has been listed before the Joint Registrar to complete service, setting the stage for further litigation.
Electronica India Ltd. v.Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Electronica India Ltd., setting aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' communications that allowed a subsequent proprietor (Electronica Hitech Machines Pvt. Ltd.) to record ownership via Form TM-24. The court found significant procedural flaws, including the lack of a speaking order and discrepancies in official records. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration, ensuring the Petitioner is given a full opportunity to be heard before any decision is made.
Soremartec S.A v.M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited
The Madras High Court closed rectification petitions filed by Soremartec S.A against M/s.Cavinkare Private Limited after both parties executed a comprehensive Memorandum of Compromise. The settlement allows Cavinkare to continue using the disputed marks ('MOMENTS') but strictly limits their application to specific, non-conflicting goods (e.g., coffee and tea). Crucially, Cavinkare agrees not to use these marks for confectionery or chocolate products, thereby protecting Soremartec's superior rights in 'FERRERO MOMENTS'.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges the PTAB’s finding of privity with its subsidiary Lectrosonics, seeking to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process rights.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones has filed a Director Review petition asking the PTAB to vacate the institution of an IPR against Zaxcom’s microphone patent, arguing the Board erred in finding privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics. The petition contends that parent‑subsidiary relationships do not satisfy the Taylor exceptions used to bar the challenge.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom submitted a corrected response in IPR2025‑00231, fixing a misquoted exhibit reference and asking the Board to remove the earlier filing. No substantive changes were made to the arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE microphones’ request for Director review of the termination of IPR 2025‑00231 was denied. The Board affirmed that Lectrosonics is a privy of RØDE, satisfying the §315(b) time‑bar and correctly applying Taylor exceptions.
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.