IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 154 of 159 · 4,764 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-18 of the patent were unpatentable on grounds of obviousness over Kovvali and Kalman. The Board rejected the Petitioner's arguments, agreeing with the Patent Owner that there was no valid motivation to combine the references for resource allocation in ring topology data flow.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB found numerous claims of U.S. Patent No. 11329973 unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art, particularly Oborne, discloses key limitations related to token generation and issuing agency verification in digital credential systems. Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–16 were found invalid, while claims 2, 9, and 17 survived.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of Cortex MCP's claims (1-17) related to electronic credentials and tokenization. The Board rejected arguments that the claimed features were obvious over prior art references like Oborne, Neafsey, and Stafford.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00484 after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the termination, ending the review of patent 9,030,292.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions and Global Tel*Link settled their IPR dispute before the Board could institute a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa submits an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises new, unraised arguments about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported and procedurally sound.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 29 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board invented a new obviousness theory not raised in Visa’s petitions, violating procedural rules.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging 17 claims of iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,829,002) in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Kudo-325 and Kudo-066.
JACS Solutions, Inc. v.Global Tel*Link Corporation d/b/a ViaPath Technologies
JACS Solutions challenges Global Tel*Link's '9030292 Patent, asserting that 29 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features of secure facility monitoring systems are predictable combinations of existing prior art in telecommunications and security technology.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against iQar Inc.'s patent 10,829,002, challenging claims related to vehicle destination prediction and power management.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa, Inc.'s IPR petition against Cortex MCP, Inc.'s patent was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The Board adopted key claim constructions, including defining 'OVER file' to encompass tokens and NFC interactions for 'scan,' confirming sufficient basis for unpatentability arguments.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa's claims against Cortex MCP were upheld by the PTAB Director in a review of the Final Written Decision. The Board confirmed that Oborne discloses the token verification limitation central to Visa's patent.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The Board found all challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of Kudo-325 and Kudo-066. The petitioner successfully argued that the prior art combination teaches or suggests the necessary elements for destination prediction and power management in vehicles. This final decision affirms the obviousness rejection against iQar Inc.'s patent.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
The Board found that the majority of claims (24 out of 33) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The key finding was that Oborne teaches core tokenization elements, while other combinations failed to provide sufficient motivation for the claimed improvements.
R Indira Devi v.G Satyaki
The appeal challenged a trial court judgment regarding copyright infringement and passing off concerning literary works. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an assignment letter from his father, while the defendant contested the claims. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed an order addressing two interlocutory applications filed by the defendant. The first application led to the addition of a specific issue concerning the validity of Patent IN 233161 under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The second application modified the schedule for leading evidence.
E R Squibb And Sons Llc v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the Defendants were infringing their Indian Patent No. 340060, which covers the drug Nivolumab. The court examined the patent's validity and prima facie case before issuing interim directions.
M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd. v.M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, M/S Mrs. Bectors Food Specialities Ltd., to implead two additional parties—M/s Satnam Mart Private Limited and M/s JK Print Pack—in its ongoing trademark infringement suit against M/S National Biscuits And Sweet Mfrs. This move was based on evidence gathered during a local commission inspection, which revealed that the defendant's infringing products were manufactured by Satnam Mart and printed by JK Print Pack. The court proceeded to issue summonses to these newly added defendants, ensuring the litigation can proceed against all responsible parties.
havells india limited v.azad singh
Havells India Limited sued Azad Singh for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that Azad Singh's use of 'REO-LT' on low tension wires deceptively imitated Havells’ registered trademark 'REO'. Havells claimed significant brand recognition and consumer confusion due to the similarity between the marks.
Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (Uab) Baltijos Mineraliniu Vandenu Kompanija v.Mr. Sahil Tandon Trading As A And Z Exports International & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Uzdaroji Akcine Bendrove (UAB) against Mr. Sahil Tandon, leading to the cancellation of a registered trademark for 'TICHE' in Class 32. The court found that UAB was the prior and legitimate adopter of the mark since 1998, citing extensive international use and evidence of trans-border reputation spilling over into India. The judgment underscores the importance of proving prior usage and bona fide adoption when challenging a trademark registration.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Respondent
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in proceedings between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Neither respondent opposed the request, with Suinno limiting its objection to confidential portions and Microsoft leaving the decision to the Court's discretion. The Presiding Judge held that the interest in ensuring impartial and independent proceedings without external interference prevails over the interest in file access where the matter concerns a purely legal and general issue, and that such access can be satisfied through the written pleadings and evidence already available.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s labs and Eye Therapies have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR docket. The request cites statutory authority and seeks limited disclosure.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their dispute over Patent 8,145,249, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). They contend the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could be harmed if disclosed.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,833,245 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317, citing policy and precedent favoring termination after settlement.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering patents 11,833,245 and 11,596,600. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
Lumi Legend has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of claims 33‑36 of U.S. Patent 11,781,703, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, anticipation, and obviousness. The petition relies on prior art such as Clary, Juan, Pankros, Tsuji, and Xu. It also argues the patent is eligible for PGR and urges the Board not to deny institution.
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION v.Manehu Product Alliance, LLC
LUMI LEGEND CORPORATION successfully petitioned for institution of its PGR against Manehu Product Alliance regarding television mounting systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard by asserting claims 33-36 are likely unpatentable over a combination of Clary and Tsuji, despite patent owner arguments about mechanical interference.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories successfully secured institution status for an IPR against Eye Therapies, LLC regarding ophthalmic formulations. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on the combination of prior art references.
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.