IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 205 of 218 · 6,517 total
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 7,357,310, arguing that claims 1-4 are anticipated (102) or obvious (103). The PTAB institution of review allows the challenger to proceed with its core arguments regarding payment authorization novelty.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology filed an IPR challenging The Ridge Wallet's compact wallet patents, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition targets all 24 claims using extensive prior art combinations involving references like Kane, Beckley, and Minn.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued an Institution Decision for IPR2024-00378, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner challenged claims 1-15 of the '930 patent related to trading platforms and currency conversion.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent 10062107, challenging claims 19-36 based on obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner regarding at least one challenged claim, advancing the dispute into the trial phase.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Intercurrency Software LLC's '863 patent, challenging all twelve claims based on obviousness (103). The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one claim challenged in the Petition.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Intercurrency Software LLC's patent (10062107) on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding Claim 1, leading to the institution of all 18 claims at issue.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Calabrese Stemer LLC's credit card authorization patent (7954706). The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness across multiple claims, leading to a favorable outcome for the Petitioner.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
Askeladden L.L.C. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Calabrese Stemer LLC, asserting that the '564 patent' claims are anticipated by prior art (Horie). The Board found sufficient likelihood of success regarding Claim 1 based on the prior art disclosure of card usage status notifications.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB instituted trial on all four claims of patent 7357310 after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner, Askeladden L.L.C., would prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The grounds relied heavily on the prior art reference 'Horie' to anticipate and render obvious the mobile payment authorization claims.
TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD. v.ATI Technologies ULC
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. successfully challenged ATI Technologies ULC's patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, focusing on obviousness over multiple prior art combinations. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success for the petitioner on specific grounds, leading to an institution decision.
SHENZHEN PINCAN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
Shenzhen Pincan Technology challenged The Ridge Wallet's patent (10791808) for obviousness over prior art, successfully securing an IPR institution decision. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's arguments regarding real parties in interest and time bar issues.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (Section 103). The Board concluded that the claimed electronic trading platform features were predictable combinations of prior art references, specifically Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, and Davidowitz.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding claims 19-36 unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Calo, Rude, and Sellberg was sufficient to teach key limitations in electronic trading/forex methods.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,954,706 B2 unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The grounds included anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), utilizing prior art references such as Horie, Kano, and Kobayashi.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) over the prior art reference Horie. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'distinct,' allowing for channel overlap, which supported the Petitioner's argument that the reference disclosed every element of the claims.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Calabrese Stemer LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims unpatentable. The Board determined that the prior art reference, Horie, anticipated the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102. This decision relates to Mobile Payment Authorization technology and is tied to related District Court litigation.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Fluorinated Polymer and Surface Treating Agent Composition' by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the controller had cherry-picked claims and failed to address the final amendments, leading to an avoidable litigation. The High Court allowed the appeal.
Januki Kumari J.B. Rana And Ors v.M/S Modern Industries And Ors
The plaintiffs, partners in M/s Kiran Shoes Manufacturers (Nepal), filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for manufacturing and selling counterfeit sports shoes under the plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDSTAR". The court found that the defendants were infringing the trademarks by using identical or deceptively similar marks on their products. Consequently, the suit was decreed with an injunction and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Ibrum Technologies v.The Controller of Patents
Ibrum Technologies appealed the dismissal of its patent application for an Intelligent Indoor Air Quality Monitoring System. The rejection was based on non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, but the appellant argued that the Controller's proceedings were flawed because their oral submissions were interrupted mid-argument. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Novartis Ag v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The parties presented joint issues to the Delhi High Court. The court framed multiple issues concerning the validity of Indian Patent IN 233161 based on various grounds (prior art, inventive step, etc.) and whether the defendant's manufacture/sale of Eltrombopag Olamine infringes this patent.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Balaji Soap Factory
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a Commercial IP Suit against Balaji Soap Factory regarding the infringement of its artistic work, specifically the VIM label. The parties reached a settlement agreement before the court on February 1, 2024.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including the admission of late-filed prior art document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
Unified Patent Court decision.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action brought by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich). Following an interim conference held on 25 January 2024, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters including the admission of late-filed document D46, the value of the proceedings, and the confirmation of the oral hearing date. The Court admitted document D46 into the proceedings, set the value of the proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and confirmed the oral hearing for 17 April 2024.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla challenges Relink US LLC's '755 Patent in an IPR, alleging that the claims are anticipated by Serban and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petition details multiple grounds under 102 and 103 across all 20 claims, focusing on grid-tied photovoltaic power management systems.
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.