IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 218 · 6,517 total
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., challenging 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10478954 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board's decision was supported by preliminary claim construction findings that favored the Petitioner’s argument regarding design motivation and prior art combination.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al. v.Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-20 are unpatentable. The Board issued key claim constructions regarding 'lifter' and 'gas pressure system,' paving the way for trial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art Costa in 3D memory technology.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Arm Ltd et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC's patent, challenging claims based on obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board accepted that a reasonable likelihood of prevailing existed on at least one claim challenge, moving the case into the merits phase.
Arm Ltd et al. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
The Director granted review and vacated a denial of institution for Arm Ltd against DAEDALUS PRIME LLC, referring the IPR back to the Board after parallel litigation was dismissed.
Pfizer Inc. v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs, Pfizer Inc. and its subsidiaries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants unlawfully manufactured, sold, and exported the infringing product 'Tofaxen', which is a generic version of their patented drug Tofacitinib (Xeljanz®). The court found that the defendants collectively infringed the suit patents while they were valid and subsisting. However, since the patents had expired during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs did not press for permanent injunction but secured a decree in terms of prayer clause 57(e).
Candico (I) Limited v.T.R. Kohli, Trading As T.R. Kohli And Sons
The Delhi High Court set aside a previous order that had refused the registration of the mark 'JUMBO GUMBO' due to an opposition. The court found that the objection raised by the opponent did not survive because their prior trademark application for 'JUMBO' had been treated as abandoned years earlier. Given the changed circumstances and the opponent's failure to contest the appeal, the High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to proceed with the registration of 'JUMBO GUMBO'.
Surindar Pal Singh v.Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.
Puma Se v.Surender Singh And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Puma Se's petition seeking cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark, 'P11MA,' registered by Surender Singh in Class 25. The court found that the respondent had slavishly copied the petitioner's established and well-known mark, PUMA, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion. Furthermore, the respondent voluntarily agreed not to contest the petition, solidifying the decision for removal.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) requested an extension of time limits for filing its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court harmonised the time limits and set the deadline at 14 January 2025, but rejected the request for any further extension beyond the statutory period.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation sought leave to appeal an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) that had granted the respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, leave to reduce its damages claim to €2 million in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that leave to appeal would clarify the scope and limits of the Court's powers in interpreting a party's request under Article 76(1) UPCA and the admissible scope of a Rule 263 RoP application. The panel rejected the request, finding that the issue raised was not the subject of different interpretations by UPC judges and would not affect the final decision on the merits.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited sought to revoke a preliminary measures order (ORD 47657/2024) against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited, arguing that the underlying main proceedings on the merits were not timely started within the non-extendable deadlines under Rule 213.1 RoP. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, holding that the proceedings were validly started when the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024, and that Rule 15(2) RoP does not require court fees to have been physically received by the Court before the deadline expires.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications. The PTAB granted the motion, dismissing the petition and terminating the proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed a motion to dismiss their IPR against Collision Communications, arguing good cause to withdraw before institution, citing prior PTAB precedent and a denied related Samsung IPR.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris contests Inpria’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR, arguing that Lam Research is not a real party in interest and that Inpria’s claim‑construction arguments are untimely.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris seeks rehearing of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Inpria’s ’903 patent covering semiconductor‑material compounds. The petition argues the Director’s retroactive rescission of guidance and misapplication of Fintiv factors violated statutory and due‑process requirements.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Inpria seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its ’903 patent, arguing Entegris failed the real‑party‑in‑interest test and that the Board’s claim construction conflicts with a Delaware court ruling.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The USPTO granted Entegris’s rehearing request, vacated the earlier discretionary denial, and sent the IPR on Inpria’s lithography patent back to the Board for institution after a related district‑court case settled.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris filed a motion to seal its confidential response to Inpria’s request for director review in IPR2025-00267, citing the need to protect trade‑secret information.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
The PTAB instituted inter partes review of Entegris' challenge to Inpria's 11,673,903 patent covering high‑purity organotin compounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, arguing that disclosure would harm their business interests.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp. petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sterling Computers’ 7,716,217 patent covering email relevance scoring, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over prior art such as Dumais, Kircher, Krug, and Marston. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Entegris, Inc. v.Inpria Corporation
Entegris has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑4 and 6‑10 of Inpria’s ’903 patent, asserting that the claimed high‑purity organotin compositions are fully disclosed in earlier literature. The petition challenges the patent on anticipation and obviousness grounds and argues that Inpria’s examiner‑era declarations were misleading.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑5 of Collision Communications’ ’703 patent covering iterative multi‑user detection. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue obviousness and urges the Board to institute the review.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo, and Motorola have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Collision Communications’ ’651 patent covering multi‑user detection. They rely on obviousness over Fuller‑Reznik and Frank‑Zha combinations and argue that discretionary denial factors favor institution.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Intel, Lenovo and Motorola seek to invalidate Collision Communications' 9,814,071 patent on multi‑user detection, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Jin, Baum, Tsai and Vrzic. The petition emphasizes new arguments and opposes discretionary denial, requesting institution of the IPR.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications’ ’505 patent covering multi‑user detection. The petition asserts obviousness over Hottinen/Lilleberg and Zimmerman/Lilleberg and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility have filed an IPR petition challenging Collision Communications' 8,089,946 patent covering multi‑user detection modems. They assert three obviousness grounds based on Walton, Learned, and Quigley prior art. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
X Corp. v.Sterling Computers Corporation
X Corp.'s IPR petition against Sterling Computers Corporation's patent (7716217) was instituted, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combining Kircher and Krug would motivate a POSITA to improve relevance scoring in email content ranking.
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.