IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 159 · 4,764 total
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all eleven claims of SK nexilis’s 2019 copper‑foil patent, arguing that the claimed surface‑roughness parameters and protective‑layer features are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson, Nokia, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 9,094,868, arguing that the invention is obvious over earlier patents by Jarvinen and Fox. The petition seeks institution of an inter‑partes review and cancellation of the claims.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Cyandia’s 2014 patent on secure information delivery, arguing lack of written‑description support and obviousness over a PCT publication combined with Austin‑Lane. The petition also challenges potential discretionary denials under §325(d) and Fintiv.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis’s 2022 electrolytic copper foil patent, asserting that all eight claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and argues that no secondary considerations exist to rescue the claims.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions to invalidate SK nexilis' 11,591,706 copper‑foil patent, asserting that all ten claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana has filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of Veeva's email‑control patent, asserting obviousness over a set of prior‑art publications. The petition argues that discretionary factors strongly favor institution.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Ericsson Inc et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Partners II LLC's patent (9094868), challenging claims 11-15 on obviousness grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the claimed link quality estimation would have been obvious over Jarvinen and Fox.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, instituting trial on all 10 claims. The grounds centered on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that specific properties of electrolytic copper foil could be achieved by combining various prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The Director denied institution of Inter Partes Review in a dispute between Solus Advanced Materials and SK Nexilis, citing the Fintiv holistic assessment.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' IPR challenges against SK nexilis regarding claims covering electrolytic copper foils for secondary batteries. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly rejecting conclusory expert testimony used to bridge prior art gaps.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against SK nexilis Co., Ltd. was denied institution by the PTAB, despite a 'close call' on the merits. The denial hinged primarily on procedural factors related to scheduling and parallel litigation.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for SAP America against Cyandia. The Board specifically found that key limitations regarding 'determining a notification method' lacked written description support in the original application.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9245826. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision sets the stage for a full trial regarding semiconductor device technology.
Axion Biosystems, Inc. v.Agilent Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a final decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable over Xu-752 and Jones. The Board concluded that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate non-hindsight motivation for combining the references or making the necessary technical modifications, citing lack of support for millisecond time resolution.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board adopted a broad claim construction, defining 'current state' to include both online and offline device states, which facilitated the finding of obviousness.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all twenty challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning backside metal adhesion. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's position that the claim language does not require strict direct contact for 'on a bottom surface.'
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB found all 17 challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board determined that the prior art reference Norström disclosed key features, leading to findings of anticipation for most claims. For others, combinations of Yin and Koshimizu were deemed obvious over the patent.
Biotyx Medical (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Biotyx Medical challenged the refusal of its patent application for an absorbable iron-based alloy implantable medical device. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of novelty and inventive step under the Patent Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order lacked sufficient scientific reasoning and proper methodology in adjudicating the invention's merits. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application back to the Controller for a detailed assessment of the inventive step.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Sanshiv Health Tech Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the pharmaceutical infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma Limited. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises. This order provides a robust mechanism for the plaintiff to secure evidence related to alleged infringement.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
Stara filed a petition for Director Review seeking to invalidate claims of AGCO’s 11,665,989 patent covering rotating toolbar mechanisms for agricultural implements. The petitioner alleges the Board erred in denying institution, citing multiple prior‑art references that disclose all claim elements. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA has requested Director Review of IPR2024-01459 against AGCO's patent 11,665,989. The patent owner may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
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.