IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 118 of 218 · 6,517 total
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Court decision.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
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. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 B2. The PTAB terminated the three related IPRs under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) after the parties filed a joint motion and settlement agreement.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging VideoLabs' patent 8667304 related to Conditional Access/DRM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are anticipated by prior art reference Russ under Section 102, and are obvious in view of Robert under Section 103.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging claims of VideoLabs' patent related to Conditional Access and DRM technology. The petitioner argues that the core concept of bridging security systems is anticipated or rendered obvious by multiple prior art references, including Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku challenged VideoLabs' patent 8291236 in an IPR proceeding, alleging that the core concepts of bridging security systems were anticipated by prior art. Petitioner argues that claims related to dynamic encryption and entitlement management are obvious over references like Russ, Robert, and Eskicioglu.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel Corporation et al. filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson's patent on deblocking filter features, asserting obviousness over various prior art references. The core arguments focus on how asymmetric decision-making and specific offset equations are routine modifications of existing video compression techniques.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to conditional access and DRM technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art 'Russ' and 'Robert.'
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims related to conditional access and DRM systems were unpatentable over prior art (Russ). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103), leading to institution of the IPR.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its challenge against VideoLabs' patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (Anticipation). The Board found sufficient support for anticipation over prior art 'Russ,' while denying institution on obviousness grounds.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR against Infineon's patent, finding that Innoscience failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP v.THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.
Srinivas S Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S Devathi filed a writ petition alleging that the USPTO, acting as an International Search Authority (ISA), fabricated an International Search Report (ISR) for his patent application (US Patent No. 8910998 B1). He claimed this fraud led to the rejection of his patent rights globally. The petitioner sought directions from the Union of India to initiate legal action against USPTO and WIPO. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the claims required extensive evidence and were outside writ jurisdiction, and given the prior requirement for consent under Section 86 of the CPC, the present petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
Mayco Monsanto Biotech (India ) Ltd v.The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Mayco Monsanto Biotech filed a writ petition challenging an impugned G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds for 2015-16. The court considered the arguments regarding potential prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 568 724, in which Panasonic Holdings Corporation sues multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The defendants sought an extension of deadlines for their Duplik, Replik to the revocation counterclaim, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024, citing delayed access to the plaintiff's redacted FRAND-related submissions. The court partially granted the extension until July 19, 2024 for the FRAND-related submissions but rejected the extension regarding the technical aspects of the case, and ordered that further main submissions be filed in a single coherent final version.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
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.