IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 152 of 159 · 4,764 total
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB has instituted IPR proceedings against Immersion Corporation's patent, finding that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Rosenberg and Brock. The Board accepted the petitioner's arguments regarding how these older systems disclose modulated haptic effects based on extra-sensory input. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of the technical scope of haptic feedback in handheld devices.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged STA Group's patent (US 9319852) in an IPR, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references like Choksi and Shaffer1. The petitioner asserts that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine elements from the cited prior art to achieve the claimed interoperability functionality. This initial petition sets up a detailed technical dispute regarding dynamic proxy insertion and device adherence determination.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against 10x Genomics, Inc., challenging numerous claims of patent 11542554. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims are unpatentable based on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing a failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in its prior art search and unfavorable General Plastic factors. The Board found that the Petitioner could not have reasonably avoided finding highly relevant references, leading to the denial of institution for all 16 claims at issue.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prior art search and tactical delays. The Board relied on General Plastic factors, finding the overlap between petitions was significant and Petitioner failed to justify its timing or discovery efforts regarding new references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for multiple claims related to peer-to-peer connection establishment. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as the Lorex Guide and Kim, taught all limitations of several claimed features. This outcome significantly advances the challenge against the patent's validity in this technology area.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent (9,116,546), asserting that the haptic feedback claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on Claim 1 based on Rosenberg.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' IPR against STA Group, finding the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness challenges over prior art Choksi.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in proving unpatentability. The claims related to graphical user interfaces (GUI) were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the petition challenging patent 9003315, finding that petitioners failed to demonstrate obviousness against the claims. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (LiTL LLC), concluding that prior art combinations did not teach the specific content filtering required by the patent.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's biometric fraud detection patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Stone and Hoyos. This decision sets the stage for a trial focusing on how existing financial security methods could be combined to achieve the claimed results.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,116,546 unpatentable. The decision relied on the Petitioner's uncontested arguments that prior art references (Rosenberg and Brock) anticipated or rendered obvious the patent claims.
Cisco Systems Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found that a large group of claims (15) were unpatentable over the prior art reference Gai under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board relied on Petitioner's '1B' theory, which successfully demonstrated obviousness by showing Gai disclosed all limitations of the claimed network topology and dummy traffic function. Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 survived the challenge.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–12, 14–18, and 20–23 of the '886 patent are unpatentable. The Board concluded that the claimed fraud detection methods were obvious over combinations of prior art references including Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the combination of prior art references Stone and Hoyos. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner Apple Inc.'s arguments that an ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine these systems for improved fraud resistance in electronic transactions.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness over combinations of Stone, Hoyos, and Varghese across various claim sets. The Board agreed that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine these prior art references for fraud detection purposes.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The Plaintiffs are seeking to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing their Indian Patents related to construction elements. The Defendant is accused of trading in products that are copies of the Plaintiffs' patents.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.Lalit Kumar Jaggia
Levi Strauss & Co. filed a suit against Lalit Kumar Jaggia seeking permanent injunctions due to the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, including 'LEVI'S', 'Two Horse Logo', and associated designs, as well as copyright violation in its labels. The court found the defendant guilty of flagrant infringement and decreed the suit for permanent injunction along with awarding punitive damages.
Rajesh Sultania And Anr. v.Arun Kumar Murarka
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajesh Sultania and Anr. which challenged the rejection of a plaint in an infringement suit brought by Arun Kumar Murarka. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent lacked standing to sue for trademark infringement because he was not the registered proprietor of 'YEH KHILA YEH KHILA.' However, the Court found that the comprehensive nature of the Respondent's claim—which included both copyright and trademark infringement—disclosed a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the court noted an assignment deed supporting the Respondent's ownership claims, concluding that the preliminary rejection of the plaint was correct.
Axon Enterprise, Nic v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Axon Enterprise against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'AXON'. The court found that through strategic use of consent letters and modifications to the description of goods (including disclaimers), the objections raised regarding conflicting marks could be overcome. Consequently, the registration application was directed to proceed to advertisement before acceptance, paving the way for eventual registration.
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.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied Dell, HP, and Asus’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision not to institute an IPR on patent 9,563,229. The Board concluded the petitioners failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the accelerometer claim limitations.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for a Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00498, leaving the original denial in place.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR on its cloud firewall patent. The petition argues the Board erred on both the combination rationale and a typographical claim‑mapping error.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Umbra's data‑beacon networking claims obvious. Umbra contends the Board misinterpreted the claim preamble and ignored key evidence, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco responded to Umbra’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board’s claim‑construction finding that the preamble “for providing data beacons” is non‑limiting is correct and that the request should be denied.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies’ ’632 patent on data‑beacon and SD‑WAN innovations. UMBRA’s response argues the cited ’421 patent and ’685 provisional lack the required disclosures and contain cancelled matter, rendering them non‑prior art. The patent owner also asserts the term “data beacon” is a limiting preamble limitation not taught by the prior art.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00344, leaving the earlier IPR outcome unchanged.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229, challenging claims related to portable computing and orientation sensing. The grounds assert that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
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.