IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 129 of 159 · 4,764 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267. They jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as business confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00643 concerning patent 8056075. The Board has not yet ruled, but the motion seeks dismissal of the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Nokia's patent 11,805,267. The order affirms that the institution decisions stand.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Chris Hoff of Barnes & Thornburg filed a Director Review request on behalf of VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. after the Board instituted IPR2024-00695 against Cisco Systems. The owner contends the Board’s sua sponte arguments merit a higher‑level review.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Mountain Voyage Co. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,791,808, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after the parties jointly requested termination and sought confidentiality for the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their dispute with patent owner Implicit over U.S. Patent 8,056,075 B2. The PTAB granted a motion to terminate the IPR and ordered the settlement agreements kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,805,267 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo challenged Ericsson's patent on IMSI encryption technologies before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on combinations of Nair and Forsberg, along with 3GPP standards, to demonstrate lack of non-obviousness. This petition asserts that existing knowledge made the claimed security enhancements predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of patent 8649426 owned by VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that prior art references Perlman and Oguz teach known solutions for reducing video encoding latency, rendering the claimed methods unpatentable.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (11805267), arguing that the claimed weighted bi-directional motion prediction is anticipated by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Karczewicz references to demonstrate that using higher precision for intermediate calculations was already known in the field.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Ericsson's patent (10425817) covering 5G security protocols. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on combinations of prior art references, leading to a trial proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully navigated the institution phase of its IPR against Nokia regarding video coding claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon could prove unpatentability under § 103, leading to the case being instituted for trial.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, alleging that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh Opposition Board. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the duty to make an independent decision.
Suzuki Motor Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Suzuki Motor Corporation appealed regarding objections related to their patent claims. The Court noted that while there is no specific provision for re-consideration, amendments might be allowed if errors relate to translation/transliteration. The Court subsequently directed the Appellant to file an application under Section 57 of the Patents Act to amend their modified claims.
Baxalta Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Laser Components SAS v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance procédurale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13/03/2024 DEMANDEUR: Laser Components SAS 45B Route des Gardes 92190 Meudon - FR Representé par Helge von Hirschhausen DEFENDEUR: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 6
UPC Decision UPC-001562 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
UPC Decision UPC-001561 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
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.