IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 159 · 4,762 total
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on foreign patents KR996 and JP705, plus U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami, to argue obviousness. Kubota also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s 9,321,386 patent covering compact tool carriers. The petition relies on Korean KR996, Japanese JP705, and U.S. Bares references to argue obviousness of claims 31‑49, 70‑79, and 86‑87. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota seeks to invalidate Vermeer’s compact tool carrier patent by arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution of an IPR covering 31 claims.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Vermeer’s U.S. Patent 10,202,266 covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996 and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §§102/103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota has filed an IPR petition challenging all 36 claims of Vermeer’s ’750 patent covering compact tool carriers. The challenger relies on Korean patent KR996, and U.S. patents Bares and Beltrami to argue obviousness under §103. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed a petition for inter partes review of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’284 patent covering a networked PAP therapy system, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior PAP and telemedicine technologies.
American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. et al. v.Neapco Components, LLC
American Axle seeks IPR on Neapco’s 11,434,958 patent covering a joint‑assembly with an access window. The petition argues the claims are anticipated by the 2016 Jeep Renegade service manual and obvious over that manual combined with Krude ʼ422 and Sugiyama. No secondary considerations are shown, and the petitioner urges the Board to institute the IPR.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Ericsson and several industry partners have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 12 claims of U.S. Patent 11,219,000, which covers uplink control channel resource allocation in 5G NR. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art such as Yan, Takeda, Marinier, and a 3GPP submission, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied requests for review in multiple IPR proceedings involving Google and Samsung against Mullen Industries. The decision maintains the prior institution decisions across several patents.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Curio Bioscience's IPR challenge against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (102), obviousness (103), or written description (112). The Board upheld the validity of the challenged claims in spatial omics/assay systems technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
The Director denied the institution of an Inter Partes Review in a Cisco Systems case, vacating the initial decision. The denial was based on procedural efficiency due to the proximity of a parallel district court trial.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB not to issue a discretionary denial of its IPR petition against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's patent. The Board found that Kubota demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground, allowing the case to proceed to full examination.
Kubota North America Corporation et al. v.Vermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB denied ResMed Corp.'s Inter Partes Review petition against Cleveland Medical Devices' patent, citing prior filings and concerns over 'road-mapping'.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent (No. 10638463) for obviousness over prior art including Takeda, Yan, and 3GPP R1-1711853. The petitioner group, comprising major wireless carriers and tech companies, successfully argued that the claimed method is unpatentable in 5G NR resource allocation.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR concerning Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC's patent, citing the proximity and significant investment in related district court proceedings. This decision emphasizes efficiency considerations under Fintiv factors when parallel litigation is active.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns the handling of confidential information in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent No. 3 215 288. The defendant Vibrantz GmbH sought to classify certain redacted text passages and unredacted exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited number of persons. The claimants Heraeus partially contested the need for protection, arguing that some information had already been disclosed in national proceedings and requesting access for five named individuals. The court addressed the scope of confidentiality protection and the number of persons permitted to access the sensitive recipe/formulation information.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
1 ORDER of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 November 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect (R.223.4 RoP) APPLICANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CFI 1. Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Untergruppenbach, Germany 2. Magna PT s.r.o.
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
This case concerned an appeal regarding the Appellant's entitlement to reduced court fees in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially claimed micro-enterprise status to pay a reduced fee of €6,600, but later abandoned that claim and asserted small enterprise status without providing supporting evidence. The Court of Appeal found the Appellant failed to demonstrate qualification as a small enterprise and ordered payment of the remaining fee plus a penalty, totaling €9,900. Following the Appellant's non-payment and request for waiver or legal aid, the matter proceeded toward a default decision against the Appellant.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute review of its wellhead patent. The petitioner contends there was no abuse of discretion and that the Board correctly applied statutory standards, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review Request.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Intelligent Wellhead Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision on its wellhead patent, keeping the institution in place.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment has requested a Director Review of a PGR challenge to its wellhead patent, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 78 claims of Downing's hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the claims are abstract, lack written description, contain new matter, and are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
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.