IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 159 · 4,762 total
Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Fashion Chemicals GmbH & Co.KG against the refusal of its trademark registration for 'REPELLAN'. The court found that the Assistant Registrar's original order was cryptic, non-speaking, and violated principles of natural justice because it failed to consider the appellant's detailed arguments regarding the difference in goods (textile vs. construction) between 'REPELLAN' and the cited mark 'REPELLIN'. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the Registrar was directed to publish the trademark for public opposition.
Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain v.Pratapchand (Deceased) & Others
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Ranjitkumar Saklchand Jain seeking to remove the trademark 'SANGHVI' from the register. The core dispute centered on whether the petitioner was a prior user of the mark for Roti Makers, despite having registered it later than the respondents. The court found that the petitioner failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence, such as invoices or sales turnover, to substantiate his claim of continuous use since 1996, thereby upholding the validity and protection rights of the respondent's trademark.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their IPR dispute over a RF connector patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for Director Review of IPR2024-00794 was dismissed after Yangtze Memory appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision, leaving the Board without jurisdiction.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision upholding claims 2‑5 and 7‑11 of its 3D NAND patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards, especially regarding the Park and Shibata references. A reversal could invalidate the Board’s findings and affect Micron’s memory‑technology portfolio.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement confidential and to withdraw the IPR petition, effectively ending the dispute over patent 11,385,415.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for director review of the PTAB's decision on its 3D NAND patent was denied. The Board affirmed that Micron failed to meet the burden of proving obviousness or motivation to combine prior art references.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,385,415 and jointly moved to withdraw the IPR, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory Technologies’ patent 10,950,623. The order affirms that the Director will not intervene.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks a PTAB Director Review of Yangtze Memory’s patent (IPR2024-00794). The Director will decide on the request, and Yangtze may file a limited response within five business days.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent covering Linear Vibration Modules. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple combinations of prior art references. This challenge focuses on core haptics and vibration actuator technology.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al. v.US Conec Ltd.
Petitioner Senko Advanced Components challenges U.S. Conec's patent (11385415) in a Petition, asserting that claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103). The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references related to optical connectors and adapters.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems' patent 9941830, leading to a decision that found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board adopted key claim constructions and accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB after demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board issued key claim constructions, defining 'driving component' as means-plus-function while confirming 'control component' is structurally defined.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
1 Milan - Central Division - First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_476/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 02/12/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of revocation : Not provided GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A. (Defendant)
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal order concerning an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 2 043 492, which covers a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a specific handle arrangement. Dyson Technology Limited, as the patent proprietor, sought interim measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal reviewed the first instance decision and, after balancing the probabilities, concluded that it was not more likely than not that the patent was being infringed. The appeal order thus turned on the assessment of the likelihood of patent infringement in the context of interim relief.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.
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.