IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 159 · 4,764 total
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate eight claims of Haptic’s ‘738 patent covering gesture‑based control of terminal devices. The petition relies on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Murakoshi, Stewart, Sachs, Orr, Li and iFixit.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Procter & Gamble’s deodorant‑stick patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all nine claims of Molecular Loop’s ’730 DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing that the Chee patent and a combination of other references anticipate or render obvious each claim. The petition also urges the Board not to deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
Ms Jainam Multi Product India Pvt Ltd v.Chen Chih-Chuan & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 414503, titled 'ANTI-THEFT ELECTRONIC SEAL', arguing that its registration was arbitrary and contrary to the Patents Act, 1970. The petition challenges the patent based on various grounds under Section 64(1).
Unique Entrepreneurs And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant is using the deceptively similar trademark 'REALLY' against the plaintiff's registered mark 'RALLI', leading to infringement and passing off. The court granted various leaves sought by the plaintiff, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to proceed.
Shankar Engineering Works And Ors v.Sankar Iron Engineering Works Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants concerning an alleged mark used by the defendants for identical products. The plaintiffs argued that there was urgency and sufficient cause to bypass the pre-mediation process.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent No. EP 3 466 498 B1 in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The defendants sought leave to file further written submissions by October 28, 2024, in response to a Court of Appeal order dated September 25, 2024. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected the application, finding that the appellate order provided no basis for permitting additional pleadings in the main proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in a main infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the respondent Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy to provide security for legal costs of at least EUR 800,000 (alternatively EUR 600,000), citing the respondent's alleged insolvency risk and lack of substantial assets. The respondent opposed the application and requested reciprocal security if any security order were granted. The Court analyzed the legal basis under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158(1) RoP, confirming its discretion to order security for costs when the respondent's financial position raises a legitimate concern that a costs order may not be recoverable or enforceable.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Western Digital's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving patent 11,968,909. The institution rulings therefore remain in place.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for two IPRs involving Western Digital and Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The petitioner must respond within five business days with a brief limited to the raised issues and cannot submit new evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Truesight’s ’803 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of eight prior‑art references covering kiosk‑based streaming, authentication, and removable media.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against Hyperice IP Subco, LLC regarding a medical device patent (11857482). The Board found prima facie evidence of obviousness and indefiniteness across multiple claims based on prior art combinations.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies successfully convinced the PTAB that its claims against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 were non-obvious, leading to the institution of trial on all claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on combinations of Bowen and Sunai prior art.
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.