IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 51 of 218 · 6,517 total
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 2012 data‑visualization patent, arguing the case would duplicate district‑court litigation and waste Board resources.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
The USPTO Director denied Tableau Software’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01388, leaving the original decision intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the Board’s assessment.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
iCharts LLC submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Tableau Software’s request for Director Review of the institution decision that denied an IPR on patent 9,712,595. The brief argues the dissent does not create a reasonable likelihood of success and that the Board’s findings on the prior art were correct.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 30 claims of Wrinkl’s ’731 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art chat‑interface patents.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts' 8,520,000 patent covering interactive chart embedding. The petition argues the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that there is no objective evidence of patentability.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’595 patent covering interactive chart creation. The petition alleges all 18 claims are obvious over prior‑art tools such as Rostoker and QlikView manuals, invoking 35 U.S.C. §103.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate iCharts’ ’892 patent covering interactive chart generation. The petition relies on ten grounds of obviousness under §103, citing Becerra, Couckuyt, Keys, Moyer, Jou and QlikView manuals as prior art.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce petition the PTAB to invalidate Wrinkl’s ’731 patent covering subsidiary‑thread chat interfaces, asserting that the 2017 Cohen publication anticipates all 30 claims. They also argue the patent’s priority date is too late, making Cohen prior art under §§102 and 103.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 10,772,456 covering coffee‑brewing control systems, asserting obviousness over a broad set of prior‑art patents. The petition relies on expert testimony and extensive prior‑art analysis to seek cancellation of the claims.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) has filed an IPR petition challenging GoPro’s D789,435 design patent for a camera, asserting obviousness over a range of prior‑art designs and urging the Board not to deny institution under FINTIV or § 325(d).
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
The PTAB denied Decent Espresso International Ltd.'s IPR challenge against DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC's infused beverage brewing assembly patent. The Board rejected the petitioner's claim construction of 'resulting solvent valve,' upholding the single-valve interpretation required by the patent owner.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Wrinkl's group messaging patent (11973731). The Board accepted arguments that the claims are unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over prior art, including Kakuta.
Slack Technologies, LLC et al. v.Wrinkl, Inc.
Slack and Salesforce successfully secured institution in an IPR against Wrinkl, Inc., challenging 30 claims based on anticipation by the 'Cohen' prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under 35 U.S.C. § 102, moving the case toward trial.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Arashi Vision's IPR against GoPro, finding that the petition lacked sufficient particularity and failed to meet the burden of proof for prior art. The Board emphasized that design grounds require focusing on overall visual impression rather than individual features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found insufficient evidence that prior art references taught or suggested the claimed interactive data visualization features.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software's IPR challenge against iCharts LLC was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding combining prior art references.
Tableau Software, LLC et al. v.iCharts LLC
Tableau Software successfully instituted an IPR against iCharts LLC regarding patent 8271892 for data visualization technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on the preliminary record, advancing the challenge to trial.
Sterlite Technologies Ltd v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order in a commercial suit and counterclaim concerning two patents held by Sterlite Technologies Ltd against Hfcl Limited. The court completed pleadings and framed detailed issues regarding alleged infringement of the patents (IN 241433 and IN 280211) and potential revocation of these patents.
KYMAB LIMITED v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 10716/CHENP/2012, which covered a process for generating antibodies in non-human mammals. The rejection was based on patent ineligibility under Section 3(i) because it was deemed a method of treatment of animals. The High Court held that the claimed invention was not aimed at treating the mice to render them disease-free or increase their economic value, and since antibodies are not intrinsic products like meat or milk, the rejection was unsustainable.
Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Anr.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. challenged the status update issued by the Union of India, which deemed its patent application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to non-filing of a request for examination. The petitioner argued that this failure was solely attributable to the negligence of their erstwhile Patent Agent and not due to any fault or lack of intent on their part. Citing previous judgments where courts extended time in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition. Consequently, the court quashed the deemed withdrawal status and directed the Indian Patent Office to restore the application and allow the petitioner a chance to proceed with examination.
Jai Prakash Singhal v.Tirupati Structurals Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining Tirupati Structurals Limited (the defendant) from using the trademark 'MM TIRUPATI' due to its deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court clarified that even if a portion of a trademark is subject to a disclaimer, the overall composite mark can still be protected against passing off. This ruling reinforces the principle that established goodwill and consumer confusion are paramount in protecting brand identity.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action based on European Patent No. 3 215 288. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claims under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure following the final judgment of the German Federal Patent Court, which had invalidated the device claim but maintained the use claim. The court largely allowed the amendments but rejected the addition of a claim for indirect infringement of the process claim, finding that this could have been brought with the original lawsuit.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a dispute over the proper defendant for a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. 3 215 288 before the Local Chamber Munich. Vibrantz GmbH filed its revocation counterclaim against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 2), the registered patent proprietor, rather than against Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG (Plaintiff 1), the undisputed substantive proprietor. The court rejected Heraeus Precious Metals' applications to dismiss the counterclaim as manifestly inadmissible, holding that under Rules 25.1, 42, and 8.6 RoP, a revocation counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered proprietor.
Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the confirmation of an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ortovox against Mammut for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices. The Court of Appeal rejected Mammut's appeal, finding that Ortovox had not engaged in unreasonable delay in seeking interim measures and that the requirements for provisional relief were met. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and to pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
Mammut Sports Group AG & Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498, which relates to avalanche victim search devices (LVS-Geräte). Ortovox had obtained an ex parte interim injunction against Mammut before the Local Division Düsseldorf, which was confirmed on review. Mammut appealed the confirmation, and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Mammut had waited too long before seeking review and that the interim measures were justified. Mammut was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings and pay additional provisional costs of €19,858.40.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘546 NAND‑flash patent, asserting abstract‑idea, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness grounds. The petition relies on extensive expert declaration and prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dusija and Sutardja.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
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.