IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 35 of 159 · 4,764 total
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 01/10/2024 Order no. ORD_51903/2024 Applicant EOFLOW CO LTD (intervener) defendants 1) Insulet Corporation (applicant in the main proceeding)
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
Gurcharan Singh v.The Controller Of Patents
Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order which dismissed his Review Petition. The initial application for condonation of 150 days delay was allowed by the High Court, and the main appeal was listed for further proceedings.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
Sreevidya Kumaramkandath v.Alkaabi Est & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Sreevidya Kumaramkandath seeking the cancellation (revocation) of the registered device mark 'TEATIME' held by Alkaabi Est & Anr. The court noted the petitioner's claim that the impugned mark causes confusion due to its deceptive similarity to the petitioner's trademark. While initial procedural issues regarding party addresses were addressed, the core dispute over trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is set for further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Kulbir Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited's petition seeking cancellation of a competing trademark, 'ROGER'. The court found that the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act due to non-use by the respondent. Given that the respondent failed to appear or file a reply despite being served, the petitioner's claims regarding extensive use and goodwill were deemed unrebutted, leading to the successful cancellation of the mark.
Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns an application for discretionary review by the Court of Appeal under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The dispute involves three infringement proceedings between Xiaomi entities (as defendants) and Panasonic Holdings Corporation (as plaintiff) concerning European Patents EP 3096315, EP 2568724, and EP 2207270 before the Local Division Mannheim. The contested issue relates to the expiration and extension of deadlines under Rule 29(d) RoP for the plaintiff's reply to the counterclaim for revocation, rejoinder to the reply to the statement of defense, and response to a request to amend the patent, particularly in light of the plaintiff's submission of a partially redacted reply and subsequent confidentiality requests regarding third-party license agreements.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s finding that all claims of its aluminum‑free deodorant patent are obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted the hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a procedural defect regarding real‑party identification.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
HydraFacial LLC opposes Eunsung Global Corp.’s request for Director Review, asserting the Board properly denied institution under Fintiv factors and that the petitioner’s new arguments are untimely. The Patent Owner urges the Director to deny the request.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against HydraFacial’s hydrodermabrasion patent, arguing misapplication of Fintiv factors and the need for efficient resolution of multiple lawsuits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a reply opposing Mullen Industries’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering Samsung’s smartwatch patent. The petitioner argues that discretionary factors favor institution, citing lack of overlap and strong merits. Samsung seeks denial of the director’s review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB granted Samsung's petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries' 11,190,633 patent covering smartwatch notifications. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 39 claims based on prior art combinations. Institution was ordered and the trial will commence.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Tecan’s DNA‑sequencing patent. The petitioner argues the institution is efficient, the expert testimony is proper, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Board’s institution therefore stands.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies sought IPR of Tecan Genomics' patent covering nucleic acid technologies. The patent owner filed a terminal disclaimer of the entire patent, prompting the Board to grant an adverse judgment and terminate the proceeding.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied Integrated DNA Technologies’ request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving Tecan Genomics. The Board concluded the petitions did not merit overturning the earlier institution rulings.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed a comprehensive set of objections to Integrated DNA Technologies’ evidentiary exhibits in IPR2024‑01504, citing multiple FRE rules to block hearsay, irrelevant, and unauthenticated material. The objections were timely filed after the institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its smartwatch patent, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and would cause waste given an imminent district‑court trial. The petition contends the Board’s factual findings are erroneous and requests denial of institution.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
Eunsung Global Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 41 claims of HydraFacial's skin‑treatment patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition asserts that the examiner never considered the Karasiuk‑Palmer, Greenberg, and Trueba teachings and that discretionary denial is not warranted.
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.