IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 177 of 218 · 6,517 total
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3404726. The defendant Laser Components SAS requested an extension of the deadline to file its statement of defense, citing technical difficulties experienced by the intervening third party Photon Wave Co., Ltd. and the need for coordination. The court rejected the request, holding that the intervenor had not suffered prejudice and that the defendant had not demonstrated its own technical difficulties, and ordered Laser Components to submit its defense brief by March 18, 2024.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc
The appellants, a group of Abbott entities, filed an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling set by the Paris Local Division's confidentiality order in a patent infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. After learning that the Court of First Instance had not granted leave to appeal, the appellants withdrew the appeal. The President of the Court of Appeal held that without leave to appeal, the appeal was inadmissible from the outset and could not be withdrawn, and accordingly rejected it as inadmissible.
Abbott Laboratories and Others v.DexCom, Inc (UPC_CoA_5/2024)
The Abbott entities appealed a confidentiality order issued by the Paris Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by DexCom, contesting the €50,000 penalty ceiling as too low and seeking to raise it to €250,000. The President of the Court of Appeal held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, the appeal required leave from the Court of First Instance, which had not been granted, rendering the appeal inadmissible from the outset and incapable of being withdrawn.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board previously denied a termination request, but the parties submitted a renewed motion.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before they were instituted. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00685 concerning AX Wireless's patent 10,079,707 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in federal court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,079,707, citing a settlement and the Board’s lack of merit decision. The motion invokes 35 U.S.C. §317 and requests confidentiality for the settlement documents.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00682 after reaching a settlement and filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00680 concerning patent 9,614,566 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review, citing a settlement and a joint dismissal stipulation. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 10,554,459 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024-00686 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,291,449, citing a settlement agreement and the Board’s authority to end proceedings before a final decision.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR challenging patent 10,291,449 B2, before any trial was instituted.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,291,449 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight inter partes review proceedings covering wireless patents. The Board granted termination motions and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and Dell Technologies jointly moved to terminate the IPR against AX Wireless’s patent 10,554,459 after reaching a settlement, filing a joint stipulation for dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate an IPR over patent 10,917,272 after reaching a settlement. The Board accepted the joint request under 35 U.S.C. §317.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled eight IPRs before they were instituted, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement agreements confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corp. and BX LED LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,567,988 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO challenges Multimedia Technologies' patent via an IPR petition, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The challenger combines several prior art references—including Melnychenko and Chen—to argue that the claimed metadata management features are predictable to a POSITA.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9,510,040). The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods and interfaces are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Kim, Lee-1, Choi, and Lee-2.
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.