IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 186 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Court decision.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 concerning patent 9,724,802. The order confirms that the decision stands.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenged Data Health Partners, Inc.'s '812 Patent in an IPR proceeding, arguing the system for tracking client progress was obvious over various combinations of prior art. The PTAB determined that institution is appropriate, allowing the challenger to proceed with its grounds of obviousness (103).
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
T-Mobile and other petitioners successfully petitioned to challenge Wireless Alliance's patent (9144106) regarding carrier management methods. The petition raised grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art from Lee et al. and Kim et al., leading the Board to institute the review.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by major carriers against Wireless Alliance, LLC's patent 9144106. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the compelling merits standard for unpatentability under § 103.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al., despite arguments from the patent owner that the disclosures were too general or lacked specific enablement. The Board found sufficient evidence to support anticipation and obviousness claims based on prior art Sung ’026.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB has instituted an IPR challenge against Samsung's 8974270, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments that combining prior art references renders multiple claims unpatentable.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Maj. Pankaj Rai v.M/S Niit Ltd.
Maj. Pankaj Rai challenged an Arbitral Award dated 19.10.2023, which rejected his claims against M/S Niit Ltd. The dispute arose from a License Agreement (dated 30.12.2015) allowing the petitioner to set up an education center using NIIT's intellectual property. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Arbitral Award.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Navkar Agriculture Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh Proprietor Of Ambika Industries
In this interim order concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court accepted the Defendant's proposal to substantially modify their contested mark. Despite the Plaintiff's concerns regarding residual similarity in font style, the Court ruled that the overall changes sufficiently reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant was allowed a grace period of two months to exhaust existing inventory while transitioning to the new mark, provided they comply with all regulatory requirements.
Fintie Llc Through Mr.Nai Chu Cheng v.Vivekananda Chintapalli Of Flat 5 & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Fintie LLC's petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration. The court found that the respondent had registered the identical word mark 'FINTIE,' relying on the petitioner's established goodwill and prior use in other jurisdictions. Given the clear identity of the marks, the court ruled it inappropriate for the respondent's mark to remain on the register.
Campus Activewear Limited v.Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in Campus Activewear Limited vs Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and designs related to shoes. The court formally registered the commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial. Furthermore, the urgent application seeking a permanent injunction was listed for further hearing, indicating that the core dispute over copying Campus's brand and design is moving forward.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.V.Nataraja trading as M/s.Nataraja Traders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark registered by V.Nataraja Traders. The court found that the respondent's mark was strikingly and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ArokyA' brand, despite minor differences or added devices. This decision reinforces the principle that similarity in appearance, color scheme, and overall impression can lead to trademark cancellation, even if the infringing party attempts slight modifications.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Application No. App_7184/2024)
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, sought to refuse the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's subsequent application to amend the patent lodged with its rejoinder. The panel granted the claimant's request, ruling that Rule 263(1) RoP did not apply and that the defendant's request constituted a 'subsequent request' to amend the patent under Rule 50(2) and Rule 30(2) RoP, which was not admitted.
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.