IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 137 of 218 · 6,517 total
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV Media Inc.'s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs against DISH Technologies patents.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1–3,5,16–20,22,26–28,30 of U.S. Patent 10,469,554 are obvious over prior art (Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0) and thus unpatentable, while claims 4,7,8,10–14,23–25 remain valid.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00902 and related IPRs, leaving the original decisions intact.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00904, leaving the original IPR findings in place.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied fuboTV’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in several IPRs, including the challenge to DISH’s patent 11,677,798.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Court decision.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '555 Patent, challenging 23 claims related to adaptive streaming technology. The petitioner argues that prior art references like Ogdon and SMIL 2.0 anticipate or render the claimed multi-bitrate streaming methods obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '680 Patent, arguing the multi-bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The PTAB found strong arguments for institution based on established frameworks. This move initiates a critical examination of the patent's validity in the media streaming space.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,470,138 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the adaptive bitrate streaming claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0 to invalidate the patent.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '798 Patent, asserting that its adaptive bitrate streaming claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that prior art combinations, including Ogdon/Allen and SMIL 2.0 standards, render the claimed features obvious.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
BOTE, LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review against Twitch LLC's '458 Patent concerning inflatable paddleboards. The petitioner challenges 15 claims based on anticipation and obviousness over various prior art references. The IPR has been instituted, moving the case toward a full evidentiary hearing.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC
BOTE, LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Twitch LLC regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,479,458 for inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the patent's claims would be obvious over prior art references.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Devender Kumar
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 3841841 related to a suspo-emulsion of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The parties mutually resolved their disputes and agreed to a compromise.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications in the patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and others. The court disposed of the application seeking exemption from mediation and dismissed the application filed by Defendant No. 5 seeking deletion from the array of parties, affirming that all defendants are necessary for the dispute.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
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.