IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 49 of 159 · 4,764 total
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Ms. Bhupinder Mehta v.Sh Pradeep Bareja & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (Application No. 5149074) in Class-11. The petitioner alleged that the respondent dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark, which was identical to her prior registered trademark. While some procedural applications were disposed of, the court formally issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies, moving the core dispute forward.
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review disputes over U.S. Patent 9,775,774, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests the USPTO Director to vacate the institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that the Fintiv factors favor denial.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a settlement‑based termination for Jeisys Medical in three IPRs while allowing the proceedings to continue for EndyMed. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request in IPR2024-00383 to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to have the agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Court decision.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00391 concerning U.S. Patent 8,141,784. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties request termination to conserve resources.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the patent record.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 13 and 14 of Serendia's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by the prior art reference Mehta. The case moves to trial phase after rejecting arguments for discretionary denial based on competitor relationships.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE before the Local Chamber Munich. The dispute involves European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1, titled 'Programmable Hybrid Transmitter,' which is in force only in Germany. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringe claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 of the patent, which relate to a transmitter architecture with a baseband processing module, an up-conversion module, and a power amplifier circuit operating in first and second modes. The decision was rendered on August 30, 2024, following an oral hearing held on June 25, 2024.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Ona Patents SL
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns a request for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The plaintiff Ona Patents SL brought the action against multiple Apple entities. The court found the request admissible and granted it to the extent ordered, holding that the existence of a negative fact does not per se exclude the need for confidentiality protection, and that even statements indicating that certain products do not support certain functionalities may qualify as confidential.
UPC Decision UPC-001299 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989 B1. The patent relates to technology implemented in devices using the Wi-Fi 6 standard, which the defendants manufacture and distribute. The order was issued by the presiding judge acting as rapporteur under Rule 105.5 of the Rules of Procedure, with the proceedings conducted in German.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB found 103 of the 105 claims of Simpson Strong‑Tie’s fire‑wall hanger patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of Yamaguchi, Bundy, Adams and Gilb ’416 references. Claims 38 and 91 were left intact. The Board adopted petitioner‑proposed claim constructions.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie challenges Columbia Insurance’s post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,920,339 covering fire‑wall hanger systems. The patent owner’s sur‑reply argues the petition’s obviousness and written‑description attacks fail, emphasizing strong secondary‑consideration evidence. The case remains pending before the PTAB.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly filed a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential while moving to terminate the post‑grant review.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,920,339 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its authority to end settled cases.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
Simpson Strong‑Tie and Columbia Insurance reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review of patent 11,920,339. The Board granted the joint motion to keep the settlement confidential and end the proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple filed a response defending the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑32 of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent are obvious. The company argues the Board correctly relied on intrinsic record and prior art, not on the patent owner’s functional‑emulation arguments.
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.