IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 117 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges Staton Techiya's patent claims regarding smart earphones, asserting that the core features are obvious combinations of existing prior art. The petition targets 30 claims related to ambient sound enhancement and acoustic noise cancellation.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute arose from Volkswagen's application for security for costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP, which was denied by the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi sought to respond to NST's Statement of response to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its behavior in the market. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding it sufficiently reasoned under Rule 36 RoP, and granted NST 14 days to file a response.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order permitting service of the statement of claim on the defendant at a trade fair stand in Amsterdam. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, a trade fair stand can constitute a temporary place of business where service may be effected, provided that deliveries are also being promoted there, which is typically the case.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its request under Art. 69.4 UPCA and R.158.1 RoP for NST to provide security for legal costs. After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought leave to lodge additional written pleadings to correct certain factual submissions made by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, holding that Rules 35 and 36 RoP apply mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent 1 838 002, in which the defendants (Tesla entities) sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A for group-internal information contained in a late-filed written submission. The court granted the request, finding that while overall Tesla production figures and sales prices are publicly known, the specific numbers and average sales prices underlying the defendants' application were not publicly accessible. The plaintiff was restricted to disclosing the protected information only to specifically named employees, with potential penalties of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for confidentiality protection (Rule 262A) filed by the defendants (Tesla entities) in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants sought protection for confidential business information contained in a late-filed submission, including vehicle numbers, sales prices, and financial calculations. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding the information was credibly not publicly available, while allowing the plaintiff access through a limited number of named representatives.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073 before the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance. The defendants (Sumi Agro companies) applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of two confidential exhibits (SA-1 and SA-9). The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object, and the court granted the confidentiality protection as requested, restricting access to specifically named employees.
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, jointly moving to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
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.