IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 120 of 218 · 6,517 total
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Entropic’s ’275 patent covering a digital TV receiver, seeking cancellation of all 20 claims on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
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 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 an IPR petition seeking to cancel all 18 claims of Entropic’s ’438 cable‑network service‑group patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial rules do not apply.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The denial hinged on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references and specific claims not being supported by cited teachings.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's second IPR petition against Entropic's wideband receiver patent (11785275), citing the existence of a first, already-instituted parallel proceeding.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent (No. 11690512). The Board found that ResMed demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Ground 1, allowing the challenge to proceed despite neutral merits.
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
Nuvei Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Autoscribe’s ’621 patent covering online payment tokenization. The challenger asserts the claims are obvious over prior art references Stringfellow, Kloster, and Carlson.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of Nike’s 9,918,511 footwear patent, arguing they are obvious over decades‑old knitting references. The petition also notes that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,986,781 patent covering knitted footwear uppers. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors do not support denial of institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers' IPR challenge against Nike regarding knit textile footwear was denied by the PTAB. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, despite adopting the patent owner's claim construction for 'article of footwear.'
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
Nuvei Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Nuvei Technologies against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds, specifically regarding negative limitations in tokenization claims.
Skoda Auto A.S. v.M.R.Sanjeevi
Skoda Auto A.S. filed a suit against M.R. Sanjeevi and others, alleging infringement and passing off concerning its well-known trade mark 'SKODA' and its logo. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for unauthorized use of similar marks. However, on the date of hearing (June 11, 2024), the court noted that the plaintiff had failed to file the required proof affidavit for chief examination as directed by the Court. Consequently, the suit was dismissed for default.
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT Madras) v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
IIT Madras appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a method for doping potassium into ammonium perchlorate to increase burn rates in solid propellants. The Controller rejected the application citing lack of novelty, inventive step, and Section 3(d) restrictions. The High Court upheld the rejection on grounds of Sections 3(d) and 2(1)(ja), finding the claimed technical advance obvious.
M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons v.Vemula Manikyam
The Madras High Court dismissed an Original Petition filed by M/s. Vemula Buchamma And Sons against Vemula Manikyam and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petitioner sought the removal or cancellation of the trademark 'KISMAT BEEDI' from the register, citing concerns over maintaining the purity of the register. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear for hearing despite being duly served notice, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
M/S. Chandras Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors
The Calcutta High Court issued a directive in the matter concerning the registration of the mark "DENSEAL (Gom.Dev)". Noting that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed to transmit the original case record despite previous court directions, the Court granted a final opportunity. The Registrar was ordered to submit the complete record by August 19, 2024, with a warning that failure to comply would result in mandatory appearance before the Court on August 27, 2024.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research filed a response defending the PTAB’s denial of Samsung’s IPR institution. The brief argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial under § 314(a) is statutorily authorized.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield (Black Kite) and BitSight have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR on BitSight’s ’331 patent. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the parties argue termination promotes efficiency and reduces costs.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01395 based on a settlement agreement, citing early-stage efficiency and lack of an institution decision.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.) v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate four inter partes review proceedings before institution. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung filed an authorized response opposing Headwater’s request for Director Review of the Board’s institution of IPR2024‑01407. Samsung contends the institution was proper, based on prior‑art disclosures and a correct Fintiv analysis, and that Headwater’s alleged prejudice is unfounded.
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.