IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 218 · 6,517 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon’s petition for Director Review of the institution decision on NL Giken’s patent 9,948,968 was denied, leaving the institution intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against NL Giken, arguing the Board’s claim constructions are correct and discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and affiliates petition PTAB to invalidate NL Giken’s ’968 patent, alleging all 12 claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee and Hunt. The petition also argues discretionary denial is not warranted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging claims in a seed carrier patent (9745123). The Patent Owner successfully demonstrated that their prototype predated the prior art references cited by the Petitioner.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
The PTAB denied Par-Kan Company's IPR against Unverferth Mfg. Co.'s patent 8967940, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over prior art references like Morris and Hiniker Webpage.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge DH International Ltd.'s patentability, leading the Board to institute IPR proceedings on all 20 claims. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'activation cue' favorable to Google and found that the Petitioner met the standard for institution based on obviousness grounds over prior art references Mooney and Lee.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against DH International Ltd.'s payment card patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding the obviousness claims over Ong and Hoff.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Curio Bioscience against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over Cantor or anticipated by Frisen. The Board upheld the Patent Owner's position regarding spatial analysis in tissue samples.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 20 claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable over prior art references Mooney and Lee. The Board successfully construed key terms like 'activation cue' functionally, agreeing that a quality Bluetooth signal satisfies this requirement.
Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and prior Board guidance to support termination.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their PTAB inter partes review disputes, leading to termination of four IPRs covering Dyson vacuum technology patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed an Initial Petition challenging 15 claims of Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent related to hand vacuum cleaner configuration. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious, relying on two distinct combinations of prior art references.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s vacuum cleaner patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that Dyson adequately demonstrated a motivation to combine prior art references for several claimed features, leading to institution on 13 claims.
Havells India Ltd v.Mohit Talwar & Ors.
Havells India Ltd filed a suit against Mohit Talwar & Ors. concerning alleged infringement of its registered designs and trademark on Distribution Boards. The current order addresses an application seeking modification of the interim injunction, which required the Commissioner of Customs to stop the export of infringing products. To facilitate compliance with this suspension order, the court directed the defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) to provide their Importer Exporter Code (IEC) details to enable effective enforcement.
Ask Automotive Limited v.A.S.K. Enterprises
The plaintiff, Ask Automotive Limited, a major supplier of automotive friction products under the well-known trade mark 'ASK', filed a suit against A.S.K. Enterprises for infringement of its trademark and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally manufacturing and selling goods bearing the identical trademark 'ASK' to deceive the public.
Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of infringement against Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors. The court recognized that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was likely to cause market confusion and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who holds registered trademarks and copyrights in 'GOLDMEDAL'. This order temporarily halts the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing infringing labels until the final hearing.
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.