IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 50 of 159 · 4,764 total
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries and CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and requests confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera manufacturers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,451,339 and related patents. The settlement agreement is confidential under statutory provisions.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case involving U.S. Patent 7,612,805. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a dismissal stipulation.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Olympus have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, requesting a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The agreement ends the PTAB challenge to patent 7,612,805.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle in the district court case tied to IPR2024-01373, seeking a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Varia Holdings seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found all 39 claims of its RFID‑emulation patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on a new, unsupported "functional emulation" theory introduced only in the Petitioner’s reply. The request argues this procedural error warrants reversal.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle in their Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the action after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the litigation over patent 8451339.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,175,148 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the proceeding. The motion relies on statutory provisions for confidentiality of settlement agreements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,175,148. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement documents as confidential, without deciding the merits.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope petitions to invalidate Belden’s 11,740,423 patent covering modular fiber‑optic cassette trays, asserting that prior art references render all 30 claims obvious or anticipated.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy and OBM have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against LANCIUM's 11,283,261 patent covering behind‑the‑meter flexible datacenters, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over existing green‑energy datacenter literature.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Varia Holdings’ ’947 RFID patent, asserting that all 32 claims are obvious over prior‑art Bluetooth/RFID references. The petition seeks institution and argues discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Varia’s RFID‑enabled mobile device patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the claims lack novelty and meet PTAB discretionary standards for institution.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International Industries has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,805,692, asserting that its wearable audio claims are obvious over prior art such as Jannard, Wittenberg, Relan, and Barnes. The petition argues that discretionary exclusions do not apply and requests the Board to institute the review.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and other camera makers petition the PTAB to institute an IPR against Optimum Imaging’s in‑camera aberration‑correction patent, asserting that all claim elements are disclosed in earlier camera‑technology patents.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent. The petition relies on obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and challenges the examiner’s earlier rejections. It also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Foras Technologies’ fault‑tolerant multiprocessor patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Fox, Safford, Arai and related references.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB decided to institute PGR proceedings, finding that the Petitioner successfully overcame arguments of Examiner error regarding prior art combinations and claim construction issues. The dispute centers on fire-resistant wall assemblies and truss hangers, with the Board issuing preliminary determinations on key terms like 'planar extension plate' and 'bounding.'
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR petition against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness. The Board specifically rejected the argument that substituting CoFeB for Fe would be obvious based on prior art teachings regarding amorphous versus crystalline structures.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies' IPR challenge against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, specifically rejecting arguments based on barrier height optimization.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
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.