IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 178 of 218 · 6,517 total
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious combinations of prior art standards like Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner asserts that industry standards already taught predictable methods for improving wireless efficiency and range.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of AX Wireless's patent (10291449) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen, July 2005 WWiSE, and Choi, to demonstrate predictable improvements in wireless OFDM technology.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. challenges AX Wireless's '459 patent in an IPR petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM techniques are predictable applications of known standards concepts to wireless transceiver architectures.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging AX Wireless's patent 10917272, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references including Hansen and July 2005 WWiSE. The petitioner successfully argued that the combination of known techniques renders the wireless communication claims unpatentable.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
DELL INC. filed an opening petition challenging AX Wireless's patent under 35 U.S.C. §103, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that the claimed OFDM transceiver design is predictable when combining known techniques from Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Petitioner Dell Inc. challenges AX Wireless LLC's patent 9614566 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references, including Hansen/WWiSE and Zhang/Maltsev, to demonstrate that the claimed OFDM header repetition technology is anticipated by existing knowledge.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the validity of BX LED LLC's patent (8567988) based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art, specifically Cao753 and Baek/Cao630, discloses all or elements of the claimed LED packaging technology.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found that multiple claims of the '805 patent were unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily over a combination of prior art references Melnychenko and Chen. Key claim constructions favored the Petitioner, particularly regarding 'pre-defined format' as merely an order of data/metadata.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-14) were patentable over the prior art. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's construction of key terms like 'based on,' requiring temporal dependency on currently displayed content.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Saera Electric Auto Limited v.Malak Techno Private Limited
Saera Electric Auto Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement suit against Malak Techno Private Limited through mediation. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the Delhi High Court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, Malak Techno agreed to cease all use of the impugned mark 'MAYUR' and any deceptively similar variations, acknowledge Saera as the sole owner of the 'MAYURI' trademarks and copyright in its logo, and pay damages totaling Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Sunil Dutt Trading As Kilter v.Pro Muscle Science & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Kilter (owner of 'MUSCLE SCIENCE') and Pro Muscle Science regarding trademark infringement in the dietary supplement market. The court found that the Defendants' use of marks like 'PRO MUSCLE SCIENCE' was highly likely to cause consumer confusion, as the Plaintiff's registered mark is entirely incorporated into the competing names. Consequently, the existing interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff was confirmed. While the matter proceeds toward mediation, the ruling strongly affirms the protection afforded to established trademarks against similar competitors.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315, held by Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. Following an oral hearing on 30 January 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to have the settlement confirmed. The court confirmed the settlement, issued a cost decision based on the parties' agreement, and ordered that the details of the settlement and cost arrangement be treated as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11634491) in a PTAB Institution Decision. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for multiple claims under both anticipation (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against The Johns Hopkins University regarding claims related to anti-PD-1 antibody treatment for MSI colorectal cancer. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success under both 102 and 103 grounds across all 36 claims at issue.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found that the patent claims were unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed invention by teaching all elements, leading to a final decision against the patent owner.
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.