IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 142 of 159 · 4,764 total
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits after PTAB final decisions in three IPRs, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The board has been asked to deny the request.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications has requested Director Review of the IPR involving Comcast’s challenge to patent 11,381,866. Comcast may file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days, and no additional briefing is permitted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The IPR concluded that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated claims 1-18 were unpatentable over prior art references based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a clear motivation to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding redesign complexity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found all 82 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that Zhang et al. anticipates or renders obvious the claims through various combinations with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey. Key findings included that Zhang's demultiplexer/selector satisfies the DFE limitation, and 'concurrently' does not require zero delay.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the patent was anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Zhang et al., in combination with other cited references.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.
Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Nandini Lall & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions filed by Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. against Nandini Lall & Anr., seeking cancellation of the 'JILLING' trademarks. Recognizing that these new petitions dealt with the same set of marks already under consideration in another proceeding, the court opted for judicial efficiency. The bench ordered the consolidation of all related matters to be heard together before a specific judge.
Fiitjee Ltd. v.Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.
D T Media And Entertainment Private Limited v.Premchand Palety
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a dispute concerning the use of educational ranking parameters. While the main suit was registered, the court issued critical interim directions regarding trademark usage and competition. The defendant was directed to immediately cease using identical language and numerical order for survey parameters that overlap with the plaintiff's 'EDUCATION WORLD' brand, while also agreeing to pre-litigation mediation to seek an amicable resolution.
R.K.Steel Industries Partnership Firm v.R.K.Impex India Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.
Motwane Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Motwane Private Limited, holding that the petitioner's right to renew its trademarks was not extinguished despite a significant delay. The court emphasized that since the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, any automatic rejection based on time limits is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and due process must be followed by the Registry before removing marks from the register.
Salish Sham Viswan v.Singing Artists Association Kerala
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Salish Sham Viswan, who held a trademark registration for 'Singing Artists Association Kerala.' The court set aside an administrative rejection that claimed jurisdiction was lacking because the petitioner's entity was assumed to be registered under the Charitable Societies Act. The judgment clarified that the core issue is whether the name and logo are protected by the Trade Marks Act, allowing the Registrar to reconsider the complaint regarding potential infringement by the respondent.
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_239/2023) brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) regarding European Patent No. EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, raising the question under Article 33(3) UPCA of whether to bifurcate or jointly hear the infringement and revocation proceedings. Both parties jointly requested a joint hearing, and the panel decided to proceed with both matters jointly for reasons of procedural expediency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00452, asserting the Board misapplied KSR precedent and case law on motivation and bodily incorporation. The petition references Intel decisions and a related institution ruling on another patent.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast's request for Director review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00445, keeping the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Entropic’s cable‑modem patent. The petition asserts the Board erred by analyzing each prior‑art reference in isolation instead of as the combinations with Thibeault. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
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.