IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 150 of 159 · 4,764 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on a combination of prior art references (Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou). The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these teachings to enhance network security and implement advanced ACL functions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenged iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,882,399) at the PTAB, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found merit in the arguments and decided to institute the IPR proceedings.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully instituted an IPR against iQar Inc.'s patent covering power management/cruise control systems, asserting obviousness over all challenged claims (1-20). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds that combining prior art references like Hongo and Obradovich renders the claimed technology obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied Tesla's request for rehearing on the Final Written Decision, upholding the finding that claims 8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,882,399 are unpatentable over Newstrom et al. The Board found Petitioner failed to adequately prove the database was remote.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB found that a majority of the claims (Claims 1–7, 9–17, 19, and 20) related to power management and route optimization systems were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board relied heavily on combining prior art references like Hongo, Obradovich, and Niki to establish invalidity for the patent owner, iQar Inc.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc. v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to set aside an order deeming abandonment of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539) under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner claims they received no information regarding the response deadline for the first examination report and that the failure was due to lack of communication from the Second Patent Agent (SPA).
Paratek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Paratek Pharmaceuticals challenged an order rejecting its patent application for a tetracycline compound. The High Court found the rejection order bad in law because it failed to consider the appellant's responses and submissions, and because it introduced new objections (claims 9-24) not raised during the hearing notice. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter.
M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Anti Surge Fuses & Lamps; M/s.Shri Krishna Industries; The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S.Mysore Commerce & Sales Pvt. Ltd., which sought the removal of a trade mark entry from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was not based on the merits of the case, but rather because the Registry's attempt to serve notice on the petitioner failed due to an incorrect address. Crucially, the Court allowed the petitioner to revive the petition since the failure was attributable to the Registry's inability to effect service.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
The IPR concerning patent 8,760,454 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. Realtek and ATI filed a joint motion to end the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries and ATI Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR 2024-00366 concerning U.S. Patent 8,760,454. The motion indicates a settlement and seeks to end the proceeding.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The IPR concerning Ridge Wallet's patent 10,791,808 was terminated after the parties reached a confidential settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement kept separate from the patent file.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The Ridge Wallet and Shenzhen Pincan Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,791,808 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Patent 10062107, arguing that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 and anticipated under §102. The petitioner asserts that core features like currency conversion in electronic trading systems were already disclosed by prior art references such as Calo, Rude, and Sellberg et al.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Petitioner Askeladden L.L.C. challenges the validity of patent 7954706, asserting that its features related to mobile payment authorization and cardholder notification are anticipated or obvious in prior art references. The challenge is based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) across seven claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Ibrum Technologies v.The Controller of Patents
Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple appeals filed by The State of Jharkhand against various respondents. These appeals were decided based on the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous precedents. The court provided further clarifications and directions while settling these complex patent-related disputes.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) on January 31, 2024. The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling addresses various disputes arising under patent law within the state.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
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.