IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 116 of 218 · 6,517 total
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the petitioner, Arashi Vision Inc., against GoPro, Inc. on multiple grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's interpretation of key claim terms related to video processing and stabilization technology.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. successfully challenged Headwater Research LLC's patent (8924543) on grounds of obviousness, leading to the institution of the IPR proceeding. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references Poh and Maes rendered the claimed network service provisioning system obvious.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully argued that the patent in question is unpatentable over prior art references Stubler and Wang under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103(a). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), leading to an institution decision.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found claims 1-14 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art references Stubler and Wang. The decision hinged on the Board adopting an ordinary meaning for key claim terms, rejecting the Patent Owner's attempt to limit scope using intrinsic evidence.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims 1, 2, and 4-6 but denied cancellation of substitute claims 7-12. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references (Parulski/Safonov, Parulski/Johnson) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP2713879 relating to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on-body devices, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest despite a unilateral cease-and-desist declaration, and that the Defendants' GS1 device likely infringed claims 1 and 4 of the patent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 concerning an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. before the Local Division The Hague. The court denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC), as claim 1 and its dependent claims extended beyond the disclosure of the original application. Abbott was ordered to bear the defendants' costs, with the value of the dispute set at EUR 4,000,000.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid for added matter (Article 123(2) EPC). Abbott was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 4,000,000.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 2 713 879 relating to an apparatus for an on-body continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) sensor device, sought a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. for allegedly infringing the patent through the marketing of the GS1 CGM device in Europe. The Local Division The Hague granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Abbott had established a sufficient interest and that the Defendants' unilateral cease-and-desist declaration did not render the application devoid of purpose.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Apple entities (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English before the Local Division Düsseldorf of the UPC Court of First Instance. The patent in suit, EP 2263098, was granted in English. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that the balance of interests favored retaining German as the language of proceedings, given that two of the five Apple defendants are based in Germany, Ona Patents is a small Spanish start-up with limited resources, and parallel proceedings between the same parties were already being conducted in German before the Munich regional court.
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd v.Ona Patents SL (Application to Change Language of Proceedings)
Google Ireland Ltd and Google Commerce Ltd (Defendants in the main infringement proceedings) applied to change the language of proceedings before the Local Division Düsseldorf from German to English, the language in which European Patent EP 2263098 was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance dismissed the application, finding that while English is commonly used in the relevant field of technology, the balancing of interests weighed against changing the language given Ona Patents' specific circumstances, including its contact person's fluency in German and the existence of parallel proceedings in German before the Regional Court of Munich.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya settled their IPR over patent 11,750,965 and jointly moved to have the settlement kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
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.