IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 26 of 218 · 6,517 total
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking cancellation of eleven claims of Spinelogik's spinal fusion patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Blain, Bray, and Steffee references.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical has filed a petition for inter partes review of Spinelogik’s U.S. Patent 8,460,385 covering a spinal fusion device. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art implants (Moskowitz, Hess) and a combination with Steffee’s curved fasteners, and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑5, 7 and 9.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑12 of Intellectual Ventures’ ’416 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art (Kim, Vayanos) and the applicant‑admitted background. The petition also contests any discretionary denial by the Board.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully navigated the PTAB institution phase against Spinelogik regarding spinal fusion implants. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness over Moskowitz and Steffee for several key claims.
Globus Medical, Inc. v.Spinelogik, Inc.
Globus Medical successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Spinelogik's spinal fusion implant patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Blain. This decision advances the dispute into active trial proceedings.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Tesla, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures II LLC regarding cellular network resource allocation claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Tesla failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intervet International B.V. v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Design
Intervet International B.V. challenged the Deputy Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its novel crystalline forms of the drug 20, 23 dipiperidinyl-5-O-mycaminosyl-tylonolide. The appeal argued that the rejection was arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to adequately consider expert evidence regarding superior stability. The Madras High Court agreed, finding a violation of natural justice in the original order.
Signal Pharmaceuticals v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Signal Pharmaceuticals appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing to grant a patent for its mTOR kinase inhibitors. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on a non-speaking order, failing to properly appreciate evidence and ignore the inventive step and therapeutic efficacy of the compound. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Mohammed Faisal T.P. v.The Registrar of Trade Mark
The Madras High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Mohammed Faisal T.P. seeking an expeditious processing of his pending Trademark Application No. 5007957. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to ensure that the application is processed within a stipulated timeframe. This order provides clarity and urgency regarding administrative delays in trademark registration processes.
Psyco Remedies Ltd. v.Micro Labs Ltd.
This Madras High Court judgment concerns a petition filed by Psyco Remedies Ltd. seeking rectification of a trademark held by Micro Labs Ltd. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the rectification request, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Both sides agreed to withdraw related litigation and mutually refrained from taking further action against each other concerning the subject trademarks. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Defendants filed an application under R. 353 RoP seeking rectification of an Order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them concerning EP 3 320 604 B1. They sought three corrections: adding '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the list of exempted BMW models, clarifying that a French vindication action covered both French and German parts of the patent, and amending a statement about an obligation to update a list. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, finding no clerical mistakes, errors in calculation, or obvious slips in the original Order.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 026 488. The Claimant DexCom, Inc. requested an extension of time limits for filing the Rejoinder to the Counterclaim for revocation and the Reply to the conditional Application to amend. Although the Defendants (multiple Abbott entities) did not consent, the court granted the extension based on fairness and equity, extending the deadlines until 11 December 2024.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed an application by the Defendants (Magna entities) for rectification of an earlier order dated 31 October 2024, which had granted provisional measures against them in favor of the Applicant (Valeo Electrification) concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Defendants sought three corrections: adding the BMW model '2 Series Gran Coupé' to the exemption list, clarifying that a French vindication action also covered the German and Slovak parts of the patent, and correcting a statement about the parties' agreement to update a list. The Court found no obvious slips warranting rectification under R. 353 RoP and dismissed the application.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and patent‑owner Intellectual Ventures have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00202 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,332,844.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes over three patents, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,407,722 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures reached a settlement that terminated three inter partes review proceedings before any trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties' motions to dismiss and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have settled their dispute over a modular switchgear patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services entered a confidential settlement with U.S. Well Services, filing a joint request to keep the agreement private and to terminate the IPR covering a modular switchgear patent for electric oilfield equipment.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual filed a joint motion to terminate its IPR against Intellectual Ventures I’s patent 7,949,785.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and patent‑holder Intellectual Ventures have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,949,785 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues the proceeding is at an early stage with no merits decision.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB Board’s decision to institute an IPR on its hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Intellectual Ventures settled their inter partes review disputes before any trial, leading the Board to terminate the three IPRs. The settlement agreements were treated as confidential business information.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Liberty Energy’s request for a review of the institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,208,878, leaving the patent’s institution intact.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB denied U.S. Well Services’ request to file new Director Review submissions in IPR2025‑00139, leaving the institution of the proceeding intact. The dispute centers on alleged violations of a Sotera stipulation by the petitioners in parallel district‑court litigation.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services filed a detailed response defending the institution of IPR2025‑00139 against U.S. Well Services’ request for a Director’s discretionary denial. The brief leans heavily on Fintiv precedent and argues that the Board’s factual findings are correct and that the patent’s claims remain vulnerable to three prior‑art combinations.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
Luxottica has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of e‑Vision’s Bluetooth‑enabled smart‑eyewear patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references including Thiel, Jannard‑740 and Apple’s Siri technology.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 37 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 722 patent on the ground of obviousness over prior‑art event‑notification systems. The petition relies on expert testimony and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.