IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 47 of 159 · 4,764 total
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
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.