IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 138 of 159 · 4,764 total
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Petition with the PTAB challenging claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9619420, arguing that the USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing components like host-to-host bridges and dual-role switching functionality renders the claimed invention predictable to a person skilled in the art.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Sitnet's patent 9877345. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard for obviousness over multiple prior art references (Gage, Mitchell, Shida).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Sitnet, LLC's '454 patent. The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Amidon and Wong/Gogic, advancing the dispute to trial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found obviousness over single and combined prior art references (Gage/Mitchell) for original claims, and also determined substitute claims failed both 103 and 101 standards.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 20 claims of the patent unpatentable over a combination of Burfeind and Crowley. The Board adopted the petitioner's argument that the challenged claims were obvious, specifically noting that Crowley provided motivation to integrate location-based features into Burfeind's event management system.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB found that Claims 1-9 and 20 are unpatentable over prior art references (Amidon, Wong, Gogic) based on obviousness. Additionally, the Board granted an Adverse Judgment to cancel claims 10-19.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Gopaljee Foods v.Subhash Chand & Ors.
In Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes, noting that an ex-parte ad interim injunction previously granted in favor of the petitioner regarding trademark infringement had been confirmed by a Coordinate Bench. The court also noted attempts by respondents to revive abandoned trademarks and make changes to user dates, requiring them to place supporting documentation on record for further consideration.
Kewal Krishan Bansal Propreitor Of Ms Vee Pee Bansal And Company v.Puneet Chhabra Propreitor Of Rama Wire Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction granted in a trademark and passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff's prior registration history, spanning from 1979, coupled with their copyright registration, strongly supported the initial finding of infringement. The judge noted the suspicious timing of the defendant's attempts to register identical marks after the plaintiff's mark was temporarily removed from the registry due to non-renewal, buttressing the decision to maintain the injunction.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
ORDER
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.
NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL and 3U Vision SRL jointly moved to terminate the Post‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent 11,666,947 after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding on public‑policy grounds.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP settled their dispute over a 1999 ERP‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision in the IPR against Umbra Technologies' patent 10,630,505. The denial leaves the institution decision intact.
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.