IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 142 of 218 · 6,517 total
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the 8,989,952 vehicle‑crash detection patent. The petitioner argues that the Board’s reading of 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) unfairly forces disclosure of means‑plus‑function constructions that are not at issue. The request seeks clarification of the rule and reversal of the denial.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an unopposed motion to keep its settlement with M.E.A.C. Engineering confidential under federal rules, also seeking termination of the IPR.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. filed an IPR against M.E.A.C. Engineering’s patent 8,858,534. The parties settled before the Board could institute a trial, leading to a termination order.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corp. and M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd. have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,806,554. An unopposed motion to terminate the proceeding has been filed, citing the settlement and judicial economy.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cambridge Mobile Telemetics' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00952, leaving the earlier denial of institution unchanged. The proceeding therefore remains denied.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation filed a petition challenging 22 claims of the '534 Patent owned by M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd., asserting that they are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Petitioner argues that the prior art reference, Bitel (WO 03/030966), discloses every element of the claimed negative pressure wound therapy system.
Solventum Corporation v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Solventum Corporation challenged M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.'s patent claims related to wound treatment, arguing that the technology was anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The petitioner asserted grounds of anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), citing combinations involving Bitel, Watson, Dolliver, and Argenta.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,048,696 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims related to inductive power transfer systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition combines multiple prior art references (Onishi, Flowerdew, Partovi, Baarman392, Tocci) to demonstrate predictability in alignment and frequency modulation technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of patent 9184157 held by 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al. The challenge asserts that the claimed ESD protection circuits are obvious over prior art references Reiner and Takahara. The petition was successfully instituted, setting up a detailed examination of the combination of existing circuit knowledge.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics challenged 18 of Sfara, Inc.'s crash detection claims in an IPR petition, arguing they are rendered obvious by prior art references Green and Wright. The petitioner asserts that combining existing sensor technologies with methods for logging driving information allows a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to achieve the claimed features.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group successfully navigated the initial hurdles in its IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, leading to the Board instituting the challenge. The Board found sufficient preliminary evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (102 and 103) concerning liquid crystal display protective circuits.
Cambridge Mobile Telematics, Inc. v.Sfara, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cambridge Mobile Telematics against Sfara, citing Petitioner's failure to provide a proper claim construction under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). Additionally, the Board found that key 'component' terms functioned as means-plus-function limitations lacking cognizable structure in the patent specification.
Anker Innovations Limited v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–7 and 9–14 were unpatentable over prior art references. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, particularly regarding the combination of Onishi and Flowerdew for independent claim 1.
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar of Copyrights and Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed a suit against the Registrar of Copyrights alleging that respondents were selling mustard oil using an almost identical trade dress and packaging to the petitioner's product. The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters, noting the emergence of evidence showing blatant copying by the respondents. While granting some time for the respondent to file necessary documentation, the court emphasized the seriousness of the infringement claim and fixed a firm date for the next hearing.
Informa Markets India Private Limited v.M/S 4Pinfotech And Anr
Informa Markets India Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing copyright registration (L-79443/2018) for the work titled 'Virtual Expo'. The petitioner challenged the validity of the registration, arguing that the document merely described generic benefits of conducting virtual expositions. The Delhi High Court examined whether this description constituted protectable literary material or was simply a documentation of an idea. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the content was abstract and extremely generic, it did not meet the threshold for copyrightability.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Samsung Electronics Co,M v.Samsung Leasing & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Samsung Electronics. The court allowed a minor application concerning corporate name changes for one defendant, while simultaneously framing an additional issue to determine the validity and non-use of the plaintiff's 'SAMSUNG' trademarks. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendants' attempt to prematurely adjudicate objections regarding the mode of proof during evidence, holding that such issues are best reserved for final arguments.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Bot Organic Private Limited v.Piruz Khambhatta & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge filed by Piruz Khambhatta against an earlier Commercial Court order that allowed the plaintiff, Bot Organic Private Limited, to amend its plaint. The core dispute involved alleged trademark infringement and passing-off concerning the mark 'RUS' used on fruit juice packaging versus the plaintiff's well-known mark 'RASNA'. The court upheld the amendment, finding that adding variants of the existing trade mark did not fundamentally change the nature or scope of the original suit.
Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited v.Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited against Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of identical or deceptively similar labels and trade dress for rice products. This immediate relief prevents the defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell goods under the disputed marks until the full trial can take place.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions concerning the registration of impugned trademarks. While an initial request for document exemption was granted, a subsequent interim application seeking directions was dismissed because the marks had already been registered. The court noted that despite the registrations, the core legal question regarding third-party rights under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act requires further consideration and set a date for re-notification.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok’s IPRs were stayed as the PTAB initiated a sua sponte Director Review to reconsider institution decisions after denying the patent owner’s motion to terminate.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of the institution decisions in TikTok’s IPRs against Cellspin Soft’s diabetes‑monitoring patent, staying the proceedings pending a new opinion.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The USPTO denied Google’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00751, leaving the institution of the IPR against Dialect’s patent in place.
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.