IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 203 of 218 · 6,517 total
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec challenges ST Reproductive Technologies’ animal‑implant RFID patent, arguing the prior art was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure anticipates the claimed implanted device elements.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One has initiated an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent claims related to Applet/Code Delivery Architecture under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are obvious combinations of prior art references like Fowlow and Kimera.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
Exotec and other petitioners have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Opex Corporation's '632 Patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge centers on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou to demonstrate predictable improvements in warehouse efficiency.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR proceeding challenging the validity of claims in patent 9844206, focusing on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing by presenting strong arguments regarding prior art combination and claim construction.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. successfully instituted the IPR against Lumenco, LLC regarding security device patents related to anti-counterfeiting micro mirrors. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims over combinations of prior art references (Fuhse847 and Rich).
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Lumenco's anti-counterfeiting patent (10317691), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art, specifically targeting anti-counterfeiting micro mirror technology. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12–20 were deemed obvious based on the combination of Fuhse847 and Rich.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
Arthrogen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Arthrogen Gmbh appealed the rejection of its Indian patent application for a method involving gold particle enrichment of blood serum. The Patent Office had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing it constituted a 'method of treatment.' Arthrogen successfully argued that the claims were directed towards a novel 'method of producing' a substance, not a direct method of treating humans. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited v.3Sk Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner invoked Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, to seek the revocation of Indian Patent 307627. The court granted exemption and issued notice to all respondents, directing them to file their replies within specified timelines.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr. v.Diamond Autos
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of 'HERO' trademarks, Hero Investcorp Private Limited sought various interim reliefs against Diamond Autos. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service due to urgency. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises in Ludhiana to verify the alleged counterfeit products, setting the stage for further proceedings on the injunction application.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
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.