IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Dolby International AB's audio signal coding patents was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Roku failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's patent (11667203) covering jump start/battery charging systems. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite the Patent Owner's counterarguments regarding technical limitations.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining Richardson's jump starter apparatus with Zhao's USB step-up charging technology, and through other combinations involving Epower/Krieger references.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Headout Inc. v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors.
Headout Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against the defendants in the Delhi High Court, addressing claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of confusingly similar marks related to travel services. Furthermore, specific mandatory directions were issued compelling the defendants to immediately take down, block, and suspend all infringing websites, domain names, and social media profiles.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Declaration of Kerry Litvin submitted by Iarnach Technologies in response to Charter Communications' IPR petition.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of several IPRs against Motorola Solutions, alleging misapplication of the Fintiv discretionary factors. The petition seeks reversal of the institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related entities filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software, arguing that the case should be dismissed before any merits are decided.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its IPRs on body‑worn and in‑car camera patents, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that bars discretionary denial when a Sotera stipulation exists. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the extensive resources invested in challenging all 160 claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,986,585 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination after settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing filed a joint request with the PTAB to have their settlement materials treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto trading entities settled their IPR disputes with Intercurrency Software. The Board granted a motion to withdraw the petitions and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement as confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,026,428 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,026,428 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy and resource efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent owner K. Mizra filed a joint request to dismiss their IPR and keep the dismissal agreement confidential. The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Omachron’s hand‑vacuum patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed features are well‑known and combinable.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,942,378, which covers multicast encryption in passive optical networks. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art including Murakami, RFC 1112, RFC 4601, and the Yen patent application, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
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.