IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 52 of 159 · 4,764 total
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB denied Adobe’s request for Director Review of the institution decision on patent 6,757,828, leaving the institution intact.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The parties filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 30 claims of Headwater Research’s ’110 patent on data‑usage billing. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references to argue obviousness under §103 and argues against discretionary denial. A stipulation not to pursue the same issues in parallel district‑court litigation is also included.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems seeks IPR on DeepSig’s 11,018,704 patent, asserting that all 24 claims are obvious over earlier machine‑learning predistortion patents (Jüschke, Holt, Dzierwa). The petition argues that the claimed innovations were well‑known and that the Board should institute the review.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate six claims of Jaffe’s ’828 patent covering image‑authentication methods. The petition relies on obviousness over prior‑art camera and hashing patents, Exif metadata standards, and a data‑stream authentication patent.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge brought by Cargill against Bunge Loders Croklaan regarding vegetable fat composition claims. The Board found that the petitioner failed to overcome obviousness grounds, specifically rejecting arguments based on hindsight bias when converting prior art data.
Cargill, Incorporated v.Bunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB previously denied institution of IPR against Bunge Loders Croklaan USA regarding a vegetable fat composition patent. The Board found that Cargill’s arguments relied on hindsight bias, specifically in selecting prior art examples to meet claimed triglyceride ranges.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
Digital Global Systems successfully secured the institution of IPR against DeepSig's patent (11,018,704) over radio signal distortion correction claims, setting up a major technical dispute in cellular communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB institution decision allows Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge 30 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,588,110 B2 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Petitioner's view of the level of ordinary skill in the art and conducted claim construction for key 'means for' limitations. This sets the stage for a full IPR review against Headwater Research LLC.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
Qualcomm successfully secured institution for its IPR against Cobblestone Wireless, despite the petition being substantively identical to a previously instituted Samsung proceeding. This decision emphasizes that lack of 'road-mapping' alone is insufficient grounds for discretionary denial when the claims are highly relevant.
Digital Global Systems, Inc. v.DeepSig, Inc.
The Board found several claims of Patent No. 11,018,704 B1 unpatentable over prior art (Jüschke and Holt), primarily based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The decision involved extensive claim construction, notably finding that 'associated with' includes models implemented in a base station and that 'representation of' allows for modeled signals.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '828 Patent. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow claim construction, specifically requiring monitoring of the physical coupling between the sensor and memory. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that any combination of prior art references renders the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED et al. v.COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
The PTAB found several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using various prior art combinations in the field of multi-carrier communication systems. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'information' as 'data,' which was critical to its findings against the Patent Owner.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patents and design rights concerning axial fans. The defendants moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Local Chamber Munich issued an order on August 27, 2024, concerning a request for a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out five guiding legal principles addressing direct versus indirect patent infringement liability under the 'extended workbench' doctrine, the scope of injunctive relief for indirect infringement, limitations on validity arguments in preliminary proceedings, and temporal urgency requirements. The court found that the contested program library combined with videos and documentation did not meet the standard for direct infringement liability, as alternative programming possibilities meant completion of the patented device could not be established with certainty.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/08/2024 concernant une demande d’audition de témoin à l’audience orale (R.176 et 177 RdP) ABSTRACT : 1. Les questions orales posées au témoin, auteur
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Syngenta Limited against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in relation to European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centers on alleged infringement through the distribution of a patent-infringing composition outside the Contracting States and advertising of a composition under the same name within the Contracting States, creating a risk of first infringement. The Local Division Munich addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the burden of pleading and proof for product claims directed to compositions, the sufficiency of cease-and-desist declarations to eliminate risk of first infringement, the limitation of validity arguments to three in summary proceedings, and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) filed a suit against Massey Ferguson Corp. (MFC) seeking declarations regarding trademark abandonment and injunctive relief concerning their respective trademarks. The original Commercial Court returned the plaint, directing TAFE to file it in the Commercial Division of the High Court, citing maintainability issues. TAFE appealed this order, arguing for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that allowing such suits in the Commercial Court could lead to forum shopping and undermine the philosophy of the Commercial Courts Act.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company
YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Punjabi
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 253/2024) between Wow Momo Foods Private Limited and Wow Punjabi. The case, which sought permanent injunctions against passing off and unfair trade practices, was settled amicably by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of Wow Momo, based on the settlement terms, wherein Wow Punjabi acknowledged Wow Momo's exclusive ownership of the 'WOW' trademark and agreed to cease all use of similar marks.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
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.