IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 117 of 159 · 4,764 total
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike's 8,266,749 footwear knitting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art knitting references. The petition seeks cancellation of 19 claims.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike's footwear knitting patent survived Skechers' IPR challenge. The Board found no unpatentable claims after rejecting the obviousness arguments based on Reed and Nishida references.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,219,020, arguing the prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Petitioner Aardevo North America filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00136 concerning patent 11140841 owned by Agventure B.V. The Board has invited the patent owner to submit a brief, five‑page response limited to the issues raised.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike successfully defended its footwear patent against Skechers’ request for Director Review of a denied IPR institution. The Board affirmed the denial under §325(d), finding Skechers’ arguments unpersuasive.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in a Nike patent dispute, remanding the case to the Board. The decision hinged on prior IPR findings showing an apparent material error regarding the Nishida reference.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in underlying infringement proceedings against multiple Autostore entities. The Court held that the Court of Appeal could validly sit in a composition of three legally qualified judges under Article 9(1) UPCA when only non-technical issues were in dispute. It further held that requests for public access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP require a balancing of the public interest against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, and that access could be granted even where proceedings had ended by settlement.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Trina Solar, Evervolt and petitioners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,722,104, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to the PTAB Director’s review request, defending the institution of an IPR against its DNA‑sequencing patents. The petitioner argues the Board acted within policy, relied properly on the Meyer reference, and did not abuse discretion.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
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.