IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 37 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Truesight Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's IPR petition against Truesight's patent (8898803), citing the advanced stage and proximity of related District Court litigation.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody challenged Hyperice's patent on percussive massagers based on indefiniteness and obviousness, but the PTAB upheld the claims. The Board found that key terms like 'substantially cylindrical' were supported by functional limitations in the specification.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
This order pertains to an appeal filed by T-Mobile Usa Inc against the Controller of Patents. The matter involves the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was released from part-heard due to roster constraints.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union of India & Anr.
The matter concerns the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general, bulk procurement process and disclose all its relevant patents and patent applications in India.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard multiple connected matters concerning the procurement of rare disease medicines, specifically those used for DMD patients. The petitioner argued that the current patient-to-patient process is extremely cumbersome and inefficient. Consequently, the court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent information.
Master Arnesh Shaw Through His Next Friend And ... v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta to document a bulk procurement process and provide details of all its relevant Indian patents and patent applications.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Master Drashtant Jhala Through His Next Friend and Natural Father Sh. Jaydeep Singh Jhala v.Union of India & Anr.
The petition addresses the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring rare disease medicines on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record a general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications in India related to DMD patients.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard matters concerning the procurement process for medicines used for DMD patients, noting that the current patient-by-patient system is cumbersome and unrealistic. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent portfolio in India.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India And Ors.
The petition concerns the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record its general bulk procurement process and provide details of all granted patents and patent applications in India related to these medicines.
Lakshay Agarwal v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner raised concerns regarding the extremely cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines on a patient-to-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to place on record the general bulk procurement process and provide details of all its granted patents and patent applications filed in India concerning DMD medicines.
Ashok Bhutani v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Ashok Bhutani successfully challenged the Trademark Registry in the Delhi High Court regarding the non-renewal of his word mark 'SNOWPEAK'. The petitioner argued that the failure to receive mandatory O-3 notices prevented him from filing timely renewal applications. Recognizing the registry's lapse, the court directed the respondents to issue all pending renewal certificates and subsequently restore and renew the trademarks for a further ten-year period.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Corporation, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd.
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the defendants' deadline to respond and file any counterclaim for invalidity expired, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement. The defendants consented to the withdrawal and the agreed cost arrangements. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a partial refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP3024163. The defendants filed a stay application based on a parallel UK High Court action seeking determination of FRAND license terms. The presiding judge referred the stay application to the full panel for decision, proposing that the matter be addressed during or after already scheduled oral hearings concerning related patents.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied Decent Espresso International Ltd.'s IPR challenge against DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC's infused beverage brewing assembly patent. The Board rejected the petitioner's claim construction of 'resulting solvent valve,' upholding the single-valve interpretation required by the patent owner.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding combining prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
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.