IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 119 of 218 · 6,517 total
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
Professor Jayashankar v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681, granted to Monsanto Technology LLC, under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petition was heard by the Madras High Court on June 13, 2024. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite being served notice, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Professor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar, representing Telangana State Agricultural University, filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology LLC. The petition aimed to challenge the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Madras High Court on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)
Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
Ashish Anilkumar Desai (M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries) v.M/S.Maas Herbals Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai against M/S. Maas Herbals Private Limited. The petition sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'LICYL' from the register, citing issues with Registration No.2089321. Crucially, the court noted that despite multiple opportunities and service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear for hearing. Consequently, the case was dismissed purely on grounds of non-prosecution.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. – Application for Change of Language of Proceedings (UPC_CFI_54/2024) v.Ex Parte
This is an order by the President of the Court of First Instance of the UPC Local Division Munich concerning an application by the Samsung defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC based on EP 2391947. The claimant did not object to the change, and the President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings for preliminary measures related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 11 July 2024 due to a scheduling conflict of their representative. The court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing to 12 July 2024 at 8:00 a.m.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain's 11,854,612 patent covering mixed‑level NAND flash memory, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim to be unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00180 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’275 cable‑technology patent. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast defends its three parallel IPR petitions against Entropic Communications, asserting they comply with PTAB guidance and are essential for addressing multiple invalidity grounds. The response urges the Director to reject the Patent Owner’s request for review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Court decision.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 11,785,275.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 cable‑TV receiver patent, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on obviousness grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports seeks IPR on SportsCastr’s live‑streaming patent, arguing that 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Ellis, Herzog, Spivey and Abulikemu, and urging the Board to institute the review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references that the examiner never considered.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
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.