IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 210 of 218 · 6,517 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00344, leaving the earlier IPR outcome unchanged.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems challenged UMBRA Technologies' patent 10574482, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art references Shieh and Potti. The petitioner asserts that industry standards for distributed firewalls make the claimed architecture predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229, challenging claims related to portable computing and orientation sensing. The grounds assert that various combinations of prior art references render the claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 regarding portable computer modes and orientation sensing, arguing that multiple claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The arguments rely heavily on combining Lane with Fujinawa, MIT, or Wehrenberg to show the claimed features were predictable in view of prior art.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
HP Inc. et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 in a petition asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art references (Lane, Pogue, MIT, Hotelling, Segawa). The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely predictable combinations of existing technology in portable computing devices.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (11146632) in the PTAB, arguing that the claims are unpatentable over prior art. The petition asserts that the patented technology is anticipated or obvious by the Agarwala reference and related knowledge of a POSITA.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's IPR petition against Umbra Technologies regarding network security claims (1-26). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness over the combined prior art teachings.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Dell and other companies against LiTL LLC's patent for display configurations in hinged devices. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds, specifically regarding mode switching using an accelerometer.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Dell Technologies Inc., finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Lane and Fujinawa. The Board determined the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any ground, upholding the patent's validity.
HP Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for HP Inc. et al. against LiTL LLC's patent claims. The Board adopted Petitioner's claim constructions for key terms like 'frame mode' and 'content mode,' clearing the path to trial.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. successfully challenged seven claims of UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.'s patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board preliminarily found that the claimed invention was obvious over the prior art reference Agarwala and general knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all seven challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over the prior art reference Agarwala. The decision adopted Petitioner's construction that 'data beacons' was merely an intended use, and found that Agarwala disclosed every structural limitation of the claims through a combination of disclosures.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against the Joint Controller's order rejecting its patent application for a compound used in treating viral diseases and tumors. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and falling under Section 3(d).
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Tiba Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent (IN269841) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted exemption from advance service, noting that the Defendant had not yet launched infringing products. Furthermore, the court passed detailed orders allowing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to search premises and seize any infringing stock.
Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd. v.Idam Natural Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mcnroe Consumer Product Pvt. Ltd., a leading FMCG manufacturer, against its defendants regarding alleged trademark infringement and disparagement. The court found that the Plaintiff's distinctive trade dress and registered mark 'SECRET TEMPTATION' were being referenced negatively in an advertisement. Consequently, Defendant No. 1 was restrained from broadcasting the impugned video, and Defendant No. 2 (YouTube) was directed to block/takedown the offending content.
M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd v.Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court addressed a dispute regarding the proper forum for trademark rectification proceedings between Prestige Estates Projects Ltd and Prestige Vacations Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that when an infringement suit is pending, questions concerning the validity of a trademark registration should be handled by the High Court, not solely by the Registrar of Trademarks. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of all related rectification petitions from the Registrar's office to the High Court for adjudication.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Sheik Azeez-Ur Rahaman Trading as Kramson and The Registrar of Trade Marks
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals filed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trade mark 'KRAMSON' from the register. The court noted that the first respondent's mark had expired due to non-renewal. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition but granted liberty for it to be revived should the registration be renewed by the respondent.
M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited v.M/S Jagdamba Incorporation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to M/S Eat Hearty Private Limited, who holds registered trademarks for 'BURGRILL'. The petitioner sought restraint against the respondent, despite a terminated franchise agreement, due to continued unauthorized use of the mark at an outlet in Vadodara. Citing the termination and evidence of ongoing infringement, the Court restrained the respondents from operating the specific outlet or using the trademark until arbitration commences.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP requests Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled 17 claims of its token‑payment patent. The owner contends the Board introduced a new obviousness theory not present in the petition, violating procedural rules and the APA.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Ltd.’s semiconductor‑device patent. The patent owner argues the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and should deny institution due to untimely stipulations and parallel district‑court litigation.
AT&T Mobility LLC et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
Daingean Technologies Ltd. submits a preliminary response to AT&T’s IPR petition, arguing that the cited prior art (Babaei, Fwu, Lee, Agiwal) does not teach the claimed “different‑from” RNTI, common search‑space, or confirmation features of claims 2 and 4, and therefore the petition should be denied.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
Vivitro Labs and the patent owner settled their IPR dispute over a biomedical device patent, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited argument about the timing of verification in the Oborne prior art. Visa maintains the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
VIVITRO LABS INC. v.BIOMEDICAL DEVICE CONSULTANTS & LABORATORIES OF COLORADO, LLC
VIVITRO Labs and Biomedical Device Consultants & Laboratories of Colorado have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,237,935, filing a joint motion to terminate the ongoing IPR and keep settlement documents confidential.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Cortex MCP seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that cancelled 14 claims of its payment‑tokenization patent. The owner contends the Board introduced an unraised obviousness theory, violating procedural rules and the APA. The request asks the Director to reverse the cancellations and confirm the claims.
Visa, Inc. v.Cortex MCP, Inc.
Visa filed an authorized response opposing Cortex MCP’s Director Review request, asserting that the request raises a new, forfeited factual dispute about the Oborne prior art and that the Board’s obviousness finding is well‑supported.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC jointly moved to terminate an IPR after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm and Icpillar have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 8,924,899 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement confidential, effectively ending the proceeding.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Ltd. and patent owner ICPillar LLC have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,924,899. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Arm Ltd. v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00476 concerning patent 8,924,899. The petition was found not to meet the required standards.
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.