IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 146 of 159 · 4,764 total
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Court decision.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging Orckit Corporation's patent (8,830,821) on grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge centers on the combination of Doshi’s MPLS path selection with reoptimization techniques from prior art like Guichard and Huang.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740 held by Orckit Corporation, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed bi-directional link aggregation and hash-based selection mechanisms were already known in prior art references like Bruckman, Basso, and Holdsworth. This challenge targets core networking technology used for load balancing.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient grounds for LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.'s challenge against Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252). The Board established reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references. This moves the case toward a full trial at PTAB.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Castrol Limited v.Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy, Trading As Sri Karthikeya Traders
Castrol Limited filed a suit against Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy for trademark infringement concerning engine oils and lubricants. The court examined the deceptive similarities between Castrol's trademarks, including 'CASTROL' and its associated devices, and the defendant's products, which used similar packaging and marks like 'CRYSTAL'. Despite the defendant making minor changes to their marks during the pendency of the suit, the court found these alterations did not negate the infringement.
Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari v.Aska Equipments Pvt.Ltd.
The plaintiffs allege infringement of their patent titled 'LED Lighting System in Inflatable Tower'. The defendants have filed a counter claim and seek clarifications regarding an ex-parte injunction.
NHK Spring Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
NHK Spring Co Ltd appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their patent application on grounds of 'lack of inventive step'. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order failed to provide adequate reasoning as to how the ground of obviousness was made out based on cited prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's analysis insufficient.
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.