IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 35 of 218 · 6,517 total
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two IPRs filed by CrowdStrike that challenge all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 9,954,872. The patent owner alleges the Board abused discretion by allowing duplicate petitions, misapplying claim ambiguity, and incorrectly construing “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of two parallel IPRs filed by CrowdStrike, arguing procedural abuse, improper claim construction, and lack of exceptional circumstances.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response urging the PTAB to deny GoSecure’s second request for Director review, arguing that all discretionary denial arguments were previously waived. The Board had already rejected those arguments, limiting the dispute to claim construction of “association.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure seeks Director Review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of CrowdStrike’s IPR against patent 9,954,872, alleging the Board ignored binding precedent and misapplied claim construction. The request highlights inefficiencies, settled expectations, and unfair dealings.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike defends two PTAB petitions challenging GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing differing constructions of the term “association” and supporting claim constructions with the Capalik prior art. The response rebuts GoSecure’s arguments against the Board’s institution of parallel petitions and the definition of “computer system.”
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied CrowdStrike's request for a review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00070, leaving the institution of GoSecure's patent 9,954,872 B2 in place. No substantive patentability issues were addressed.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike filed a response defending the Board’s decision to institute two parallel IPRs against GoSecure’s cybersecurity patent, emphasizing proper claim constructions for “association” and “computer system.” The petitioner argues the Board’s reasoning aligns with precedent and that the prior‑art reference Capalik renders the claims obvious.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
GoSecure has submitted a Director Review request for IPR2025-00068, prompting CrowdStrike to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Sterlite Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AFL Telecommunications' optical‑fiber cable patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications and Plume Design have filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’108 patent, asserting anticipation by Chow‑669 and obviousness over Werner‑Wiley. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution under discretionary standards.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,954,872 patent on the basis that its claims are obvious over a series of prior‑art references covering malware activity monitoring and intrusion detection.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike seeks IPR of GoSecure’s U.S. Patent 9,954,872 covering methods for detecting unauthorized computer activities. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Capalik, King, Pike, and Farley, and urges the Board to institute the review.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of U.S. Patent 10,598,258, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution under the Fintiv factors and argues that the claims lack patentability. The outcome is pending.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 23 claims of GoSecure’s ’697 patent on obviousness grounds, relying on five prior‑art references. The petition argues the Board should institute review and notes that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate GoSecure’s 9,106,697 patent covering virtual‑machine‑based malware detection. The petition argues obviousness over Capalik combined with King, Pike, and Farley, and opposes discretionary denial.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Court decision.
Sterlite Technologies Inc. v.AFL TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Sterlite Technologies Inc.'s IPR petition against AFL Telecommunications, LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Sterlite failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds over Summers/Kaji and Pausan/eABF.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum, citing the Fintiv factors and lack of compelling merits despite strong arguments regarding network optimization technology.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike successfully secured institution of IPR against GoSecure's patent 9,954,872. The Board adopted a broad construction for the key term 'association,' reinforcing the likelihood of unpatentability.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike initiated an IPR against GoSecure's '872 patent, focusing on obviousness (103) in the field of Intrusion Detection Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Ground 1 regarding Claim 1 over Capalik, advancing the case toward trial.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of an institution decision in a patent dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure. The case is now remanded to the PTAB to determine which petition, if any, should proceed after claim construction.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for CrowdStrike against GoSecure, finding that the correct claim construction was already established in a related proceeding.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
CrowdStrike successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against GoSecure regarding network intrusion detection methods. The Board adopted a broad claim construction for IDS/IPS systems, finding reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Capalik and King.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The Director granted review of the institution decision in a dispute between CrowdStrike and GoSecure, vacating the initial orders. The case is remanded for the Board to determine which claim construction (broader or narrower) should be used before deciding on trial.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
The PTAB denied the petition to challenge claims 1-20 of patent 10598258, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board rejected arguments regarding obviousness, noting insufficient motivation to combine prior art references in the claimed manner.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB denied CrowdStrike's IPR against GoSecure's patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success on the grounds of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the petitioner's argument that prior art taught fingerprint generation within a virtual machine monitor.
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.