IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 53 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned for institution in its IPR against SiOnyx, LLC's patent (US 11069737). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits against both Haddad138 and Yap regarding image sensor technology claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent 9147609. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on technical arguments showing prior art (Cooney) discloses the claimed tapered hollow center in semiconductor vias.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned the PTAB against Harbor Island Dynamic's patent, leading to an institution decision. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of anticipation for claim 1 based on Okashita prior art and determined that combining structures would render other claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Cooney.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The Board issued a final decision finding that all challenged claims (19) were unpatentable. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness and anticipation based on combining prior art references in the field of SOI switching circuits.
Asana Biosciences Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant sought condonation of a 37-day delay in filing an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court allowed the application for condonation of delay, while simultaneously issuing notice regarding the main appeal seeking to set aside the impugned patent office order.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application concerning a system for selectively operating regenerative braking in a vehicle. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure regarding essential vehicle parameters. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Kx Technologies Llc v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that rejected Kx Technologies Llc's word mark application 'FACT'. The court found that while there were conflicting marks owned by Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Limited, the scope of protection for those earlier marks was limited to fertilizer and chemical products. Since Kx intended to use 'FACT' exclusively for air and water purification filters, the risk of confusion was deemed unlikely, allowing the application to proceed with a specific disclaimer.
SWAT Medical AB and Erik Krahbichler v.Meril Italy srl, Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The applicants, SWAT Medical AB and its board member Erik Krahbichler, sought access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to all written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 4 151 181 between the Meril entities and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The presiding judge-rapporteur rejected the application, holding that operating in the same field as the patent was insufficient to establish a specific interest and that the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicants' general interest in information.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
Menard has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Signify’s configurable lighting patent, arguing that the CCT switch placement is obvious in view of several prior‑art patents. The petition seeks institution despite parallel district‑court litigation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Portsmouth Network’s ’088 patent on bandwidth‑sharing routing, arguing obviousness over Dziong, Sathyanath and Jensen, and opposing discretionary denial.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The PTAB denied a request to vacate a Final Written Decision (FWD) because the Petitioner introduced new arguments regarding obviousness in its reply brief. The Board found that the initial petition lacked sufficient particularity to support the claims' unpatentability.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully argued that multiple claims of Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent were unpatentable over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath, specifically regarding network routing and bandwidth allocation. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Menard, Inc. v.Signify Holdings B.V. et al.
The Final Written Decision found that most claims (1-7, 9-15, and 18-20) were unpatentable under § 103 based on prior art combinations. The Board affirmed the Petitioner's success in demonstrating obviousness over references like Chaimberg and Roberge for several claim groups. While some procedural issues regarding timeliness were resolved favorably for the Petitioner, the core finding was a rejection of broad claims due to anticipation and obviousness.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB rejected Cisco's IPR challenge against the '088 patent, finding no grounds for obviousness over prior art references Dziong and Sathyanath. The Board construed the key term "other connections" narrowly to mean established connections with allocated bandwidth, favoring the Patent Owner's interpretation.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1 regarding the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court classified certain information contained in the Rejoinder and specific exhibits as confidential and restricted access to designated representatives of the Applicant, Valeo Electrification. The court denied the Applicant's request to grant access to an additional lawyer, Thierry Lautier, who was not actively involved in the proceedings.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Major U.S. carriers and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,094,868, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials seeks to block the PTAB Director's review of its successful institution of an IPR against SK Nexilis' 11,591,706 patent covering advanced material technology.
Ericsson Inc et al. v.Headwater Partners II LLC
Headwater Partners and major carriers have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,094,868 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing of its institution denial, finding the petition did not overcome the Fintiv factors, particularly the tight trial schedule. Institution of the IPR remains denied.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva Systems settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01443 and IPR2024-01444 before institution. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia files a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its notification‑method patent, asserting the Board’s claim construction is inconsistent with the district court and the patent’s plain language.
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
SAP America successfully defended its IPR against Cyandia’s 8,751,948 patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on a plain‑meaning construction of the term “determining a notification method.”
SAP America, Inc. et al. v.Cyandia, Inc.
Cyandia filed an authorized response opposing SAP’s Director Review Request, asserting that the PTAB’s institution decision was proper and that SAP’s arguments were waived. The patent owner relies on Sotera, Motorola, and Dell precedents and highlights Fintiv factors favoring denial.
Aktana, Inc v.Veeva Systems Inc.
Aktana and Veeva have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,391,937 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or merits, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found Samsung's challenged claims unpatentable. The patent owner alleges legal error in claim construction and factual error regarding the feasibility of the Gambino process. The request challenges the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-01405, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages, no new evidence, and a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor anchor‑via patent. The owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv discretionary factors, especially the proximity of a parallel district‑court trial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic seeks Director Review of IPR2024‑01403, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.
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.