IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 156 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge the validity of Headwater Research's patent claims in an IPR proceeding. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding obviousness, leading to the institution of the case. This decision sets the stage for a detailed examination of wireless communication technology standards and prior art combinations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Board found all challenged claims of patent 8406733 unpatentable over prior art references TS-23.140 and Ogawa by a preponderance of the evidence. The decision hinged on demonstrating that conventional design choices, such as using SSL/TLS and implementing modems, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Vinay Kumar Gupta
The plaintiff, Levi Strauss & Company, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were clandestinely manufacturing, storing, and distributing infringing apparel using deceptively similar trademarks to its registered brand 'LEVI'S'. The court found that the defendant adopted the trademark/label 'Levi', leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms Dolphin International Pvt. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar Khatri
The plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit against its former employee, Vinod Kumar Khatri, alleging that he breached his employment contract by disclosing confidential business secrets and client information to a competitor. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the alleged irreparable loss.
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mimozax Co., Ltd. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Design, Patent Office Chennai
Mimozax Co. appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-obesity composition derived from Acacia, which was refused based on several grounds including reliance on undisclosed prior art. The High Court found that the Controller failed to provide all relevant materials to the appellant and emphasized the doctrine of fairness in patent proceedings.
Amba Motorcyles Thr. Sh. Sanjeev Kapoor / Top MotoComponents Private Limited v.Mahavir Prasad
In a significant development for trademark litigation, the Delhi High Court allowed an application to replace one plaintiff with its successor-in-interest, Top MotoComponents Private Limited, who had acquired the assets and liabilities related to the 'TOP' trademark. Furthermore, the court subsequently accepted a joint application from both parties, leading to the suit being decreed based on the terms of a comprehensive settlement agreement. This outcome provides clarity on succession in IP disputes while finalizing the underlying commercial dispute.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Motion Offense’s file‑sharing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Houston, Garcia and Wu. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Motion Offense’s ’353 patent, asserting that claims 1‑7 and 16 are obvious over prior‑art patents Houston and Garcia. The petition argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and seeks institution of the review.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Motion Offense’s ’737 patent, asserting that claims 1‑5, 13 and 14 are obvious over Houston and Garcia patents. The petition argues discretionary denial is inappropriate and cites compelling evidence of unpatentability.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The USPTO denied DISH Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' video‑compression patent.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on its cable‑network patent, arguing the panel misapplied obviousness standards and acted inconsistently with a similar case.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Entropic Communications' '759 patent, arguing that key concepts are obvious over prior art. The Board granted institution based on Fintiv factors and unique legal issues, allowing the IPR to proceed.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox, Inc. filed a Petition challenging Motion Offense LLC's patent (11611520) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed file sharing and folder synchronization features are predictable combinations of prior art references like Houston, Garcia, Manzano, and Wu.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
DISH Network LLC's IPR petition against Entropic Communications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to support the petitioner's argument that combining prior art systems would render the patent obvious.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
Dropbox successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Motion Offense LLC's patent, challenging claims 17-21 based on obviousness. The Board found that Dropbox demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several claims, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding prior art disclosure and prosecution history.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), specifically claims 9-12, 14-16 and 22-24. The Board successfully applied the KSR framework to find motivation in combining prior art references like Riepling and Meisels for file sharing functionality.
Dropbox, Inc. v.Motion Offense LLC
The PTAB found claims 17-21 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combination of prior art references Houston and Garcia. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, concluding that 'representation' simply means a displayed sign or symbol. This decision validates the Petitioner's argument that a person skilled in the art would combine these references to achieve the claimed features.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.
Bawa Masala Co Pvt Ltd v.Bawa Masala Co & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Trademarks Office's decision regarding the abandonment of an opposition. The core issue was whether service effected via email to a correct address constituted sufficient legal notice, allowing the opposition timeline to begin. Despite arguments that sending an email is a recognized mode of service, the court ruled that mere dispatch creates only a presumption, which can be rebutted by the recipient demonstrating non-receipt. Since the opponent successfully proved they never received the counter statement, the appeal was dismissed.
Tajinder Soap And Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks Registry At New Delhi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking cancellation of a trade mark registration, finding that the renewal was administratively irregular and illegal. The court noted that the mark had lapsed in 2007, and despite subsequent public notices offering opportunities for revival, the owner failed to act. Crucially, the court found that the Registry erroneously revived the expired mark after nearly fourteen years through an interlocutory petition, leading to its cancellation.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-19) under reference UPC-001635, Dolby International AB appeared in dispute with HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finlan Oy, HP Italy S.r.l, Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP - Computing and Printi concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR as to Jeisys Medical Inc. following a settlement with Serendia, while allowing EndyMed petitioners to continue the review.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to vacate the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatological device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity. The request cites the recent recission of the Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances that favor a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Serendia, LLC have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of substantive briefing.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering settled their IPR dispute before any trial, resulting in a Board order terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the associated IPRs. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,812. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of oral hearing. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding in its entirety.
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.