IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 49 of 218 · 6,517 total
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of CamelBak’s 9,782,028 drink‑container patent, alleging obviousness over Kiyota, Ribarits and Choi references and arguing that the term “user release mechanism” is means‑plus‑function.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging claims 1-16 of a nucleic acid analysis patent, finding reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's motion to deny based on prior art similarity, allowing the technical merits of anticipation and obviousness over Kivioja and Bielas to proceed to trial.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Iafrate and Kivioja for key NGS claims. The Board also provided definitive claim constructions for 'indexing site' and 'identifier site.'
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies challenged Tecan Genomics's NGS patent (9546399) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references Iafrate and Kivioja. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Iafrate and Kivioja.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands' IPR challenge against CamelBak Products regarding a drinkware patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground, despite arguments concerning functional equivalence in user release mechanisms over prior art like Kiyota and Ribarits.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. faced denial in an IPR proceeding against Collision Communications, Inc., regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found no reasonable likelihood that Samsung could overcome the obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (11844752). The Board granted institution on all 19 claims, finding sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations. This sets up a major trial regarding the validity of P&G’s core cosmetic technology.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd. v.Asetek Danmark A/S et al.
Cooler Master Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Asetek Danmark A/S was denied by the PTAB, failing to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed liquid-cooling systems were obvious over prior art references like Duan and Shin.
Eunsung Global Corp. v.HydraFacial LLC et al.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge regarding skin treatment systems due to substantial overlap with parallel ITC proceedings and advanced litigation. This decision emphasizes resource conservation when multiple venues address the same prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute IPR against Haptic, Inc.'s patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel civil litigation and concerns over system efficiency.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) in a dispute involving Samsung and Mullen Industries. The decision relied on the Fintiv factors, finding that procedural concerns outweighed the merits.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute trial against Molecular Loop Biosciences' patent claims related to genomic sequencing and analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least claim 1, allowing the IPR to proceed despite extensive prior art challenges under Sections 102 and 103.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB found multiple claims unpatentable under both § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references—specifically Iafrate, Kivioja, and Bielas—in the context of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies. Claim construction was finalized, defining key terms like 'identifier site' and 'indexing site'.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine various prior art references for predictable results. This decision confirms the validity of the combination approach under POSA principles in deodorant formulation technology.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1-9 for Molecular Loop Biosciences against Illumina. The Board rejected all grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art like Chee, finding that the required 'collapsing step' necessitates combining both target sequence and differentiator tag information.
Klf Nirmal Industries Pvt Ltd v.Mr. Johnson Varghese
The appellant filed a commercial appeal challenging the refusal by the lower court to grant an ex-parte interim injunction and appoint a local commissioner regarding alleged copyright infringement and passing off. The High Court examined the provisions of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It held that since the order refusing the injunction was not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC, the appeal was not maintainable and consequently dismissed.
Ms Jainam Multi Product India Pvt Ltd v.Chen Chih-Chuan & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. IN 414503, titled 'ANTI-THEFT ELECTRONIC SEAL', arguing that its registration was arbitrary and contrary to the Patents Act, 1970. The petition challenges the patent based on various grounds under Section 64(1).
Unique Entrepreneurs And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the defendant is using the deceptively similar trademark 'REALLY' against the plaintiff's registered mark 'RALLI', leading to infringement and passing off. The court granted various leaves sought by the plaintiff, including leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the suit to proceed.
Shankar Engineering Works And Ors v.Sankar Iron Engineering Works Pvt Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants concerning an alleged mark used by the defendants for identical products. The plaintiffs argued that there was urgency and sufficient cause to bypass the pre-mediation process.
The Hershey Company v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Hershey Company successfully sought the expansion of its existing interim injunction against new parties found to be engaging in trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff to implead several new defendants and extended the protective order, specifically restraining them from using or reproducing the company's name and marks on domains like THEHERSHEYCOMPANY.IN. This ruling reinforces the court's willingness to expand injunctive relief when evidence reveals additional infringing parties.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Volkswagen AG's request for rectification of a prior order that had directed Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide security for costs in three related proceedings. Volkswagen sought to have the order rectified to include a notification under R.158.4 RoP that failure to provide security could result in a decision by default under R.355 RoP. The Court of Appeal declined rectification but issued a separate order providing the required notification to NST.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning notification pursuant to Rule 158.4 RoP in proceedings involving three European patents. Audi AG had requested rectification of a prior order that required NST to provide security for costs, seeking inclusion of a notification that failure to provide security could result in a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The Court declined to rectify the original order but provided the notification separately to NST.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The defendants (Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH) sought leave to file further written observations by October 28, 2024, in response to the Court of Appeal's order of September 25, 2024 in case UPC_CoA_182/2024. The presiding judge rejected the application, finding that the Court of Appeal's order provided no basis for allowing further pleadings in the main proceedings.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital seeks to have the PTAB vacate an instituted IPR on its MTJ hard‑drive patent, arguing that piecemeal review undermines the AIA and that the district court is the proper forum.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny IP Bridge’s Director Review request. The brief argues that IP Bridge ignored Board guidance and provides no basis for vacating the institution decisions.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied Director Review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital’s challenge to patent 10,680,167 owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1. The institution decisions remain in effect.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital files an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s Director Review request, asserting the request lacks merit and that the PTAB’s institution decisions should stand.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital requests the PTAB Director to vacate institution of an IPR on a hard‑disk‑drive MTJ patent, arguing that the case should be resolved in the pending district‑court litigation.
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.