IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 56 of 159 · 4,764 total
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Ulink Agritech Private Ltd. v.Sml Limited & Others
The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar Anr.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.
Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16 August 2024 APPLICANT IN PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDINGS: TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON represented by Mr. Wim Maas Eelco Bergsma Manuel Durães Rocha DEFENDANTS IN PRELIM
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
1 Nordic-Baltic - regional division UPC_CFI_8/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 16/08/2024 APPLICANT/CLAMIMANT 1) Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Applicant) - One Edwards Way - 92614 - Irvine, California - US Represented b
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Nnova And Company v.Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition following a settlement between Nnova And Company and Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies. The court cancelled the registered trademark 'GLOWNOWO' (No. 3830607) in Class-03, which was deemed deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark NOVA. In exchange, the respondent agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks and committed to using a specific label format for 'Glownow', ensuring distinctiveness from the original brand.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber in Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP4108782, owned by President and Fellows of Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen, Inc. filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking the production of various documents from the plaintiffs, including a 2019 license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, several emails disclosed in parallel US discovery proceedings, and documents referenced in a US hearing before Judge Kennelly. The order addresses the procedural framework for these document production requests in connection with the parallel US litigation.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
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.