IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 39 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 55 claims of SiOnyx’s U.S. Patent 11,069,737 covering textured‑layer image sensors. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§ 102 and 103 and asks the Board not to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
Asana Biosciences Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant sought condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, while simultaneously issuing notice regarding the main appeal seeking to set aside the impugned patent office order.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
SWAT Medical AB, a medical device company based in Sweden, filed an application seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in revocation proceedings concerning European patent EP 4 151 181, which was the subject of a revocation action between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The applicant claimed a direct interest as a competitor and board member/investor in cardiac implant technology, citing concerns about a third-party product under development potentially covered by the patent's claims. The respondents (the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the application, with the Meril entities jointly requesting rejection and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeking dismissal.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, seeking Board approval to seal the document.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Samsung and Headwater have entered a settlement that resolves their disputes over U.S. Patent No. 9,094,868. They jointly move to terminate the inter partes review as to Samsung and request confidentiality for the settlement.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
SK Nexilis seeks a Director Review to keep its copper‑electroplating patent alive after the PTAB instituted an IPR. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and over‑relied on unsupported expert testimony.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva settled their dispute over patents 9,055,023 and 9,391,937, leading the PTAB to terminate both inter partes review proceedings before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential and kept separate from the patent files.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Cyandia’s WebSphere‑related patent, arguing the Board’s reliance on speculative overlap and misapplication of Sotera precedent. The petition urges the Director to overturn the denial and institute review.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Court decision.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has been notified that Cyandia’s request for Director Review in IPR2024‑01433 is pending, with a tight five‑day response window and no new evidence allowed.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s ’948 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over IBM WebSphere documentation combined with the Austin‑Lane publication.
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.