IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 123 of 159 · 4,764 total
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Digital Media Technology Holdings regarding patent 7574725. The Board adopted broad claim constructions for key terms like 'distributing' and 'exhibiting,' favoring the Petitioner’s interpretation over the Patent Owner’s narrow industry definitions. This sets a favorable precedent for interpreting media technology claims broadly in PTAB proceedings.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against WellcomeMat, LLC's patent (8307286) concerning online video/real estate marketing. The Board found that the Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard despite prior district court litigation.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that several original claims were unpatentable over Buibas in view of Sinyavskiy. However, the Board subsequently found the petitioner's substitute claims obvious over combinations of Grotmol and Zhu prior art, leading to further rejection.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness (103), specifically concluding that prior art references taught every element of Independent Claim 1. The Board also adopted broad claim constructions, rejecting narrow interpretations proposed by the Patent Owner regarding terms like 'Exhibitor' and 'Distribution'.
Intel Corporation et al. v.TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET L M ERICSSON et al.
The PTAB found multiple claims of the '430 patent unpatentable over prior art, primarily Taniguchi. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction that key claim terms were not limiting, supporting obviousness findings across several grounds.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. Specifically, Claims 13-15 and 17-20 were found unpatentable over prior art references Fegan and Vasilevsky/Logan. The Board also denied the Petitioner's motion to exclude exhibits.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging infringement of its registered Trade Mark 'Gold Winner' and copyright violation related to the packaging of edible oil. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, directions for destruction of infringing materials, and an accounting of profits. Ultimately, both parties reached a mutual agreement and settled the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise (JMC).
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to restrict access to confidential information or evidence to certain persons during appeal proceedings. Curio Bioscience Inc., the appellant and defendant in the main proceedings before the Court of First Instance, sought to restrict access to a redacted document (Annex CR-1) filed in support of its appeal against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The Court of Appeal held that an unappealed order of the Court of First Instance under Rule 262A restricting access to certain information remains in effect after the conclusion of proceedings, including during appeal proceedings, unless otherwise specified.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Pictometry’s aerial imaging patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied rules on claim‑chart format, expert declaration length, and claim construction. Nearmap seeks remand to a new panel to evaluate its obviousness and anticipation arguments.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet requested a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against InfoExpress's patent 8,117,645. The Director denied the request, leaving the institution decision denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted the Krantz reference, overlooking device‑level audit data. The petition seeks vacatur of the decision and institution of the review.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
Nearmap US, Inc. challenged U.S. Patent 9,182,657 on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references—including Loewen, Fujimoto, Mostafa, and Kain—render the claimed aerial image capture technology obvious. This is a challenger's opening petition for review in the field of Aerial Image Capture and Geolocation.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS challenges InfoExpress's patent (8117645) in the PTAB, arguing that claims related to Network Access Control are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate that combining known security and NAC techniques would have been routine for a POSITA.
Nearmap US, Inc. v.Pictometry International Corp. et al.
The PTAB denied Nearmap US, Inc.'s IPR petition against Pictometry International Corp., finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board also noted that the Petition lacked particularity in mapping prior art disclosures to claim limitations.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. failed to overcome obviousness challenges against InfoExpress Inc.'s network security patent (8117645) before the PTAB. The Board denied institution because the petitioner could not demonstrate that prior art teachings sufficiently suggested specific auditing limitations in the claims.
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd. v.M/s.Ganesh Oil Mills
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Private Ltd filed a suit against M/s. Ganesh Oil Mills alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to the edible oil market. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was using the deceptively similar mark 'SATHYAM GOLD' on products mimicking the plaintiff's registered brand 'Gold Winner'. Both parties ultimately agreed to settle the dispute through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise, leading the court to decree the suit.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Ishfaq Chemical Industries & Anr.
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Ishfaq Chemical Industries for infringement of its trademarks and copyrights, including passing off. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 28, 2024.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson(Publ) v.Lava International Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute concerning Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Ericsson against Lava International. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents, while simultaneously determining the scope of infringement and the quantum of damages owed. Ultimately, the judgment affirmed the validity of seven specific patents while directing the revocation process for another patent, alongside awarding substantial damages to Ericsson.
Genentech, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Genentech appealed the rejection of its patent application for a medicinal compound, 'Inhibitors of IAP', by the Controller. The Controller rejected the claims citing lack of novelty and inventive step under various sections of the Patents Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the Controller's objections farfetched.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Ollos Biotech Private Limited v.Omega Ecotech Products India Limited
Ollos Biotech Private Limited filed an Original Petition to revoke Patent No.411774 granted to Omega Ecotech Products India Limited. The petitioner contended that the invention lacked novelty, inventive step, and was patent ineligible under Sections 3(d) and (f) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court found that both the product claim and method claim lacked an inventive step or novelty based on prior art and non-patent literature.
Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel v.Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ashvinkumar Babulal Patel against the trial court's order granting an injunction to Shree Sardar Patel Sevadal. The court upheld the lower court's finding that the plaintiff had established use of the 'SPG' trademark since 2007, noting that appellate courts should not interfere with factual findings made by the trial court. While dismissing the main appeal, the High Court granted a temporary stay on the order for three weeks.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Court decision.
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.