IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 191 of 218 · 6,517 total
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
The Petitioner failed to prove that the challenged claims of Patent No. 9,023,203 B2 were unpatentable by obviousness over prior art references Yokoyama, Cline, and Honermann. The Board found insufficient motivation for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) to make the claimed structural modifications or reorient existing devices.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Pushpendra Yadav v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd
Pushpendra Yadav challenged an interim court order that restrained him from selling water purifiers or using specific marks, citing alleged infringement of Kent Ro Systems' registered design and trademarks. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction primarily because the relevant Design No.219309 had expired. However, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the passing off claim, which remains under consideration.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Ht Media Limited v.Coolboots Media Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Ht Media Limited against Coolboots Media Private Limited. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting exemptions and setting timelines for filing documents. Crucially, the court also initiated interim injunction proceedings regarding the alleged misuse of similar marks ('SHINE' vs 'OUTSHINE') and directed both parties to explore mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The parties filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and patent owner ICPillar LLC have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics challenged patent 11680274, owned by The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and Regenxbio Inc., on grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding that the challenger's arguments were strong enough to warrant further review.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657, challenging claims based on obviousness over Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare. The Board granted institution after the Petitioner mitigated concerns regarding parallel litigation in District Court.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
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.