IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 27 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis has filed an IPR petition challenging 48 claims of Regeneron’s anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art formulations and presentation data.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 27 claims of Intellectual Ventures' 844 patent on the basis of obviousness. The petition argues that the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Liberty Mutual and Comerica petition the PTAB to invalidate 63 claims of IV’s ‘Secure Virtual Community Network System’ patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Mehta and RFC‑1383. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate ten claims of U.S. Patent 11,208,878 covering a modular switchgear system for oilfield fracturing equipment, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Smart Optics, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for Luxottica against E-Vision's electronic eyewear patent (11487138), finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness grounds using prior art like Thiel and Gruber.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Samsung Bioepis sought to invalidate numerous claims of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals' ophthalmic formulations using grounds of obviousness (103). The PTAB denied institution based on a holistic Fintiv analysis, citing significant overlap with ongoing district court and MDL proceedings.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-10 of U.S. Well Services' patent '878, focusing on hydraulic fracturing systems and power distribution. The Board found that the petitioner successfully demonstrated a rational basis for combining multiple prior art references to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Prakash Pipes Limited v.Jai Ambay Industries And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Prakash Pipes Limited against Jai Ambay Industries. The court found that the respondent's registration of the mark 'KIRANPARKASH' was obtained fraudulently and dishonestly, as it was confusingly similar to the petitioner's established mark 'PRAKASH'. Furthermore, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's claimed turnover versus its micro-enterprise status. Consequently, the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to remove the impugned trademark from the register.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant Daedalus Prime LLC in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP2792100. The Claimant sought to restrict access to certain statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement to attorneys' eyes only. The Court balanced the parties' interests and granted access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Xiaomi Defendants, while denying access to a third in-house counsel responsible for technical analysis.
Maars Holding B.V. and Others v.City Glass and Glazing Private Limited
The defendants in a patent infringement action (Maars entities) applied for an order requiring the claimant (City Glass and Glazing Private Limited) to provide security for legal costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158.1 RoP. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) granted the application in part, ordering City Glass to provide security of EUR 19,000 by deposit on the UPC account by 29 January 2025, while dismissing the request for leave for interim appeal.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This case concerns a confidentiality application (R. 262A RoP) filed by the Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, seeking to restrict access to certain documents filed in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant sought 'attorneys' eyes only' protection for statements regarding the transfer of the patent suit and a partially redacted Patent Transfer Agreement. The Court granted the confidentiality request but extended access to two specific in-house legal counsels of the Defendants, finding that while the Defendants' waivers in other proceedings did not bind them in UPC proceedings, access should be limited to legal counsel involved in legal analysis rather than technical analysis.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,980,998, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final decision.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Midas Green Technologies seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR on its immersion‑cooling patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and recent case law.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
DeepSig rebuts Digital Global Systems’ attempt to introduce new claim‑construction arguments in a PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board’s original claim interpretations were correct and that instituting a dependent claim without an unpatentable independent claim is legally untenable.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and Cardiacsense have jointly moved to terminate their Inter Partes Review over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling files an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Midas Green Technologies, arguing the Board correctly weighed the Fintiv factors and that petitioner’s stipulations limit prior‑art overlap.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
The PTAB denied Dexcowin Global’s inter partes review petition against Aribex’s portable x‑ray device patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on any claim. The Board rejected anticipation and obviousness arguments centered on a continuous high‑voltage DC power limitation.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR on its AI‑driven radio‑signal patent. The petitioner argues the Board misread claim language, requiring a modeled signal, and that the Jüschke and Holt references satisfy the statutory standard.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin and CardiacSense have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,980,998 and jointly request the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The USPTO denied Digital Global Systems' request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute its IPR against DeepSig. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
Digital Global Systems petitions the PTAB to invalidate DeepSig’s 11,777,540 patent, asserting that its AI‑driven radio‑predistortion claims are obvious over earlier disclosures by Jüschke, Holt, and Dzierwa. The petition outlines three statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §103 and urges institution of the review.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin has filed an IPR petition challenging Cardiacsense’s ’998 patent covering swimming‑watch technology. The petition alleges lack of written description for a compass and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 10,405,457, arguing obviousness over Best‑2008 combined with Osada and Best‑2012, and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
The Director denied the institution of an IPR for Midas Green Technologies against Green Revolution Cooling, citing Fintiv factors and concerns over parallel proceedings.
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. v.Midas Green Technologies, LLC
Green Revolution Cooling, Inc. successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Midas Green Technologies, LLC regarding claims covering appliance immersion cooling systems. The Board found that the petitioner met the burden of proof for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references Best-2008 and Osada.
Garmin International, Inc. v.Cardiacsense LTD
Garmin International successfully navigated the initial stages of its IPR challenge against Cardiacsense LTD's '998 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds. The Board found that certain claims were not entitled to an earlier effective filing date due to insufficient written description support for a compass feature in prior applications.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against DeepSig Inc.'s radio communication patent (11,777,540) filed by Digital Global Systems, citing insufficient evidence that the claims were obvious over prior art.
Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) (Through her son) Trading as Nalli Weaving Center v.N.Kuppuswami Chettiar
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Nalli Duraiswami Saroja (Late) against a rectification order concerning her trademark. The court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to appear or prosecute the case. Consequently, the original registration was allowed to continue without challenge from the appellant's side.
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.