Year

IP Cases — 2024

6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions

By type: patent 5899 trademark 584 copyright 19 design 15

Page 135 of 218 · 6,517 total

patent · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00917

Court decision.

patent · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

A joint notice confirms the final written decision in IPR2024-00919 contains no confidential information.

patent null · May 17, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00938

Dyson challenged a patent covering vacuum cleaner apparatus, arguing that all 15 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies heavily on combining well-known configurations from references like Butler, Peng, and Lehmann to demonstrate predictable results in cleaning device design.

patent · May 17, 2024

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

· IPR2024-00937

Duration Media LLC challenged Rich Media Club LLC's patents, asserting that claims 1-14 related to viewability measurement are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the claimed technology is obvious when combining prior art references like Koeppel and Seo.

patent null · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

Petitioners are challenging claims of DISH Technologies' '772 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The core argument centers on prior art, specifically Leaning, which allegedly discloses adaptive bitrate streaming technology. Petitioners also assert that institutional factors strongly favor the institution of the IPR.

patent null · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00918

fuboTV Media Inc. has filed a Petition challenging DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent 9407564, asserting that all claimed limitations related to Adaptive Bitrate Streaming are obvious in view of prior art references Leaning and Gamble.

patent null · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00917

Petitioners challenged 18 claims of DISH Technologies' adaptive bitrate streaming patent based on obviousness (§ 103), citing prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. The PTAB found strong institutional factors, indicating the case will proceed to substantive review.

patent · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology initiated an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory regarding claims related to charge-trap memories. The core argument is that the claimed memory device features are obvious when combining existing knowledge with specific prior art teachings.

patent null · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00910

Micron Technology filed a petition challenging claims 7-10 of Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, asserting that the structural elements are obvious over prior art Park. The petitioner argues that the 'dummy source structure' disclosed in the prior art would be arranged predictably to support manufacturing processes.

patent null · May 17, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00906

Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's patent covering multi-radio cellular functionality, simultaneous video/data transfer, and over-the-air updates. The petition argues these features were obvious combinations of prior art references like N93 and Dua. This IPR targets 27 claims across five distinct grounds.

patent null · May 17, 2024

Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00871

Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00938

Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC

· IPR2024-00937

The PTAB denied the institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Rich Media Club LLC's advertising patent. The Board found that Petitioner Duration Media lacked a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103).

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

fuboTV and Yanka Industries successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent (8868772) covering Adaptive Bitrate Streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Gamble, leading to the institution of all 21 challenged claims.

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00917

fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00918

fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s patent, challenging claims related to adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Leaning and Gamble. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00912

Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00910

Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00910

Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.

patent instituted · May 17, 2024

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.

· IPR2024-00906

Samsung successfully secured institution in this IPR against Maxell, challenging numerous claims of patent 11445241. The Board found sufficient evidence regarding prior art combinations involving N93, Dua, and Herle. This decision moves the dispute toward a full trial on obviousness grounds.

patent denied · May 17, 2024

Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

· IPR2024-00871

The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.

patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00919

The PTAB found that all 21 challenged claims of DISH Technologies L.L.C. were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board determined that prior art, specifically Leaning and Gamble, taught or rendered the claimed Adaptive Bitrate Streaming (ABR) technology obvious.

patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00918

Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 16 claims of the '564 patent are unpatentable over prior art, primarily Leaning. The Board construed 'continuous playback' to mean no interruption occurs between files during a rate shift, finding this limitation was taught by Leaning.

patent final · May 17, 2024

fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00917

The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.

patent No outcome · May 17, 2024

Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames

Delhi High Court - Orders · 66011448

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.

patent No outcome · May 17, 2024

Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others

Delhi High Court - Orders · 141260417

The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.

patent mixed · May 17, 2024

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India

Madras High Court · 85105639

Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.

patent LITIGATION · May 16, 2024

Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH v.Patent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-001473

Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.

patent LITIGATION · May 16, 2024

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-001472

This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 3096315, in which the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) sought production of various license agreements under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to support their FRAND defense. The court rejected the defendants' production requests as overly broad fishing expeditions, while reserving the right to issue production orders at a later stage depending on further submissions.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Consult our team →