IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 200 of 218 · 6,517 total
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo challenged claims related to cyclic advancement in OFDM systems, arguing that the claimed novelty is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that 'cyclic advancement' is merely a predictable equivalent of known techniques found in prior art references like Dammann and Hervin.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence that the challenged claims are unpatentable, proceeding on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The case involves resistor bypass circuits for LED lighting, with the Petitioner arguing various prior art combinations teach the claimed invention.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient grounds for LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.'s challenge against Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252). The Board established reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references. This moves the case toward a full trial at PTAB.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics' IPR petition against Collision Communications was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board specifically cited deficiencies in how Samsung addressed critical limitations within the challenged claims using the prior art.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The PTAB denied Arista Networks' petition to review Orckit Corporation's patent (7545740) because the arguments and prior art were substantially identical to those previously presented in related IPR proceedings.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
LENOVO failed its IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II's patent covering integrated circuit calibration, as the Board found Petitioner could not overcome key limitations of the claims using prior art. The denial centered on insufficient accounting for a three-dimensional 'valid operation range.'
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo's IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures over Cyclic Diversity Systems was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden regarding the prior art reference Dammann’s status as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo successfully challenged several claims of Intellectual Ventures II's patent (8474016) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute on all challenged claims. The Board found strong evidence that prior art references like Neufeld and PCI Bridge Spec taught or rendered obvious various limitations of the asserted claims.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation and obviousness for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–14) related to a resistor bypass circuit for LEDs. The Board found that prior art references disclosed all limitations or provided clear motivation for substitution in multiple instances.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that U.S. Patent No. 7,325,140 B2 is unpatentable due to obviousness over prior art references. Specifically, the combination of Neufeld and Syvanne renders claims 11 and 12 obvious, while other combinations involving IPMI render multiple claims invalid.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges 7325140 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art related to remote device management. The petitioner contends that allowance was based on low-level implementation details already disclosed in references like Neufeld and IPMI/Lawrence.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,474,016 in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that known concepts of remote management and encrypted communication were implemented using low-level details already disclosed in existing technology.
Castrol Limited v.Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy, Trading As Sri Karthikeya Traders
Castrol Limited filed a suit against Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy for trademark infringement concerning engine oils and lubricants. The court examined the deceptive similarities between Castrol's trademarks, including 'CASTROL' and its associated devices, and the defendant's products, which used similar packaging and marks like 'CRYSTAL'. Despite the defendant making minor changes to their marks during the pendency of the suit, the court found these alterations did not negate the infringement.
Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari v.Aska Equipments Pvt.Ltd.
The plaintiffs allege infringement of their patent titled 'LED Lighting System in Inflatable Tower'. The defendants have filed a counter claim and seek clarifications regarding an ex-parte injunction.
NHK Spring Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
NHK Spring Co Ltd appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their patent application on grounds of 'lack of inventive step'. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order failed to provide adequate reasoning as to how the ground of obviousness was made out based on cited prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's analysis insufficient.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
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.