IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 218 · 6,517 total
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Resonant Systems' patent claims related to Linear Resonant Vibration Modules (LRVM). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The decision hinged on the combination of various prior art references to demonstrate obviousness in vibration module technology.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1 and 6 were unpatentable over prior art (Park), while the remaining claims were patentable. The Board clarified claim terms like 'formed in the BSG' to encompass both gate-first and gate-last embodiments, rejecting Petitioner’s obviousness arguments based on hindsight bias.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all five claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed invention was obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Izumi and Cosper.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The Board found all five challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Petitioner successfully argued that combining existing technologies was obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA).
M/s Architectural Solution and Production v.Sandeep Kumar Jangid Trading as M/s Bhavishya
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging illegal acts of infringement, piracy, passing-off, and unfair trade competition against the defendant regarding its registered design. The plaintiff is involved in manufacturing and trading lamps and LED lights. The court passed a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium S.A, Pfizer Inc, Pfizer Europe MA EEIG, Pfizer S.A, Pfizer Ltd, Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.R.L., Pfizer B.V. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals S.A.
Procedural Order
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Claimant 10x Genomics requested that the Defendant Curio Bioscience provide security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. The Defendant argued the application was inadmissible, contending that Art. 69(4) UPCA only permits defendants to request security from claimants. The Court held the application admissible and well-founded, ordering the Defendant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within four weeks, and granted leave to appeal.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH & SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
This is an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division Munich in favor of Dyson Technology Limited against SharkNinja. The dispute centered on European Patent EP 2 043 492, directed to a hand-held vacuum cleaner with a cyclonic separating apparatus. The Court of Appeal set aside the preliminary injunction, finding that Dyson had not demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that the attacked SharkNinja embodiments infringed claim 1, specifically because the evidence did not sufficiently establish that the accused products used a cyclonic separating apparatus employing centrifugal force as required by feature 1.3 of the patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found that most of the ’015 jump‑starter patent claims are unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived. The decision follows a thorough claim‑construction analysis and a finding that the petitioner met its burden of proof.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites compliance with 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and promotes settlement policy.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Payne and over Sakai/Kawagoe. Texas Instruments’ motion to join the earlier IPR2023-01244 was also granted.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments secured a joint IPR, expanding its challenge to Greenthread’s 10,510,842 patent covering graded dopant semiconductor devices. The Board instituted review of all 18 claims and approved the joinder, citing a reasonable likelihood of success and no prejudice to the existing proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology and Omachron reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00690 concerning patent 10,117,550 B1. The settlement agreement is kept confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,117,550 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The Director Review order grants Texas Instruments a remand, vacating the PTAB’s final decision. The Board is instructed to allow narrow discovery on privity and to consider previously excluded claim‑construction orders.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs challenging Greenthread’s semiconductor patents. The Board found the petitions lacked merit and ordered denial.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, leaving the prior final written decisions in place.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in Texas Instruments’ IPRs against Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, ordering new discovery on the privity issue.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments petitioned to challenge Greenthread’s semiconductor patent and sought joinder with a related IPR. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and granted both institution and joinder, merging the proceeding into IPR2023-01242.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The USPTO denied Texas Instruments' request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in three related IPRs involving Greenthread's semiconductor patent. The denial leaves the PTAB's rulings intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The USPTO denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving The Noco Company's patents, leaving the original decisions intact.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The NOCO Company's jump‑starter patent, arguing the Board correctly found the claims obvious over standard USB‑charging prior art. NOCO’s request for Director Review is opposed and expected to be denied.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found eight of its USB‑charging jump‑starter claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness analysis and ignored key evidence.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Texas Instruments and Greenthread, vacated those decisions, and remanded the cases for further proceedings, citing abuse of discretion in denying discovery and striking claim‑construction orders.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB Director Review email authorizes ADC Solutions Auto LLC to file a 15‑page response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00671. No new evidence may be submitted and the response must be filed within five business days.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron Intellectual Property's vacuum cleaner patent (US 10,117,550). The petition asserted grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior art references.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged Greenthread's patent on CMOS fabrication methods using multiple prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the merits strong, leading to institution of the petition.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Greenthread, LLC
Texas Instruments challenged the '11121222 patent on multiple grounds of obviousness (§103), arguing that prior art references like Kawagoe, Wieczorek, and Wolf render the semiconductor device claims unpatentable. The PTAB found the merits strong and determined that institution was warranted for review.
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.