IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 139 of 159 · 4,764 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction for an “end-to-end tunnel” and seeking to vacate the institution of review for Cisco’s IPR. The Board had instituted the IPR based on an obviousness finding over Hankins and Munger references.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL, backed by AGCO, has filed a PGR petition challenging all 15 claims of 3U Vision’s automated sorting‑machine patent, asserting indefiniteness and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-00497. Cisco may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the request.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbra SRL challenged 3U Vision's optical sorting patent (11666947) on grounds of obviousness and indefiniteness, specifically over the prior art reference ElMasry. The PTAB preliminarily agreed that it is more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable, instituting the proceeding for trial phase.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR against ISIX IP LLC's patent (6308178), finding sufficient evidence that SAP America, Inc. had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Brann and Suresh. The Board adopted key claim constructions, notably rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow view of 'application.'
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in challenging Cobblestone Wireless LLC's patent (7924802). The Board preliminarily determined that the preamble 'in a wireless communication channel' is not limiting, allowing the IPR to proceed on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (10630505) regarding Global Virtual Network optimization claims. The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness over prior art combinations, specifically citing Hankins and Munger for several key claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board adopted the Petitioner's analysis, concluding that the claimed technology was obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger and Treuhaft.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability for claims 15-20 of the '595 patent. Claims 1-14 were mooted by disclaimer, resulting in no challenged claims being found unpatentable.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a petition challenging a notice issued regarding a pre-grant opposition filed by respondent no. 3 against its Indian Patent Application. Vertex claims that the opposition could not have been filed after the Controller had already decided to proceed with the grant of the patent.
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner filed an Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to reverse a prior order by the Controller General of Patents regarding patent application 201841047838 and grant the patent in their favor. The petition also included a request for condonation of delay. However, the court noted that attempts to serve the Registry notice on the petitioner failed as the petitioner was not present at the given address. Consequently, the Court closed the appeal/petition.
Spencer'S Retail Limited v.Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others
Spencer'S Retail Limited filed a suit against Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiff argued that the City Civil Court was not the proper forum for seeking relief due to restrictions in the City Civil Courts Act, 1953, and because the matter had already been adjudicated.
Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain) v.Sh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.
Rukmini Devi And Ors. v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of an alleged trademark assignment by the Registrar. The core dispute involved complex succession issues among the heirs of the original assignor, leading to multiple conflicting claims regarding the validity of the deed. Recognizing the ongoing litigation and disputes, the court did not rule on the merits but instead directed the petitioner to file comprehensive objections with the Trademark Registry. This move ensures that the assignment is subject to a fresh de novo review and hearing, effectively pausing the previous decision.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v.Indu Devi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'GOLDY,' held by Indu Devi. The court found that despite minor visual differences, the first respondent's mark was strikingly and deceptively similar to the petitioner's established marks ('GOLDIEE'). This decision reinforces the principle that phonetic similarity can outweigh superficial design elements in trademark disputes.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
The IPR petition against EVONIK's gas separation membrane technology failed as the Petitioner could not establish unpatentability. The Board found that the combination of cited prior art references lacked a sufficient motivation to combine, upholding the patent's validity.
Dr. Vandana Parvez v.The Controller of Patents Office of Controller General of Patents
The appellants appealed the rejection of their patent application for a method/system related to interactive online digital content. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty based on prior art D1 (the appellants' own withdrawn application). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that citing the appellant's own withdrawn application as prior art was invalid and directing the Patent Office to expunge it from the public domain.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Mitsui Chemicals Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemicals Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3877/DELNP/2009), which was rejected on grounds that the claims were unpatentable as a 'method of agriculture' (Section 3(h)) and that amendments violated Section 59. The Appellant argued that the original PCT filing supported the amended composition claims, making the refusal invalid.
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.