IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 57 of 159 · 4,764 total
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v.NEC Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion argues that the agreement should be separate from the patent file and disclosed only on a need‑to‑know basis.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 9,262,864 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the motion, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,262,864, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision, and the patent owner did not submit a preliminary response.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat’s preliminary response argues that Anker’s IPR petition should be denied because the cited prior art was already considered by the USPTO and does not disclose the full claim scope.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. rebuts Anker Innovations’ IPR petition, arguing that none of the cited references anticipate or render obvious the claims of its 9,083,204 inductive power transfer patent. The Patent Owner seeks confirmation of patentability.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies defends its 8,626,461 patent on inductive power efficiency monitoring against Anker Innovations' IPR challenge. The response argues that the cited prior art (Olson, Stevens, Jin) fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed features. The Board is urged to uphold the patentability of claims 13‑18.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies settled their wireless‑charging patent dispute in IPR2024‑00995. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations' IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,083,204, arguing that the petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood of success and that the prior art was already considered, warranting a denial of institution.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting that the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations and Powermat Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,626,461 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and cites public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑46 of Chiaro Technology’s ‘380 breast‑pump patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references. The petition stresses examiner error and cites strong discretionary factors favoring institution.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 9,245,374 regarding 3D voxel data processing used in medical imaging, asserting anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Sekiguchi and Partain. The claims are broadly challenged across multiple statutory grounds (102 and 103) by 3Shape A/S et al., citing related district court litigation.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an IPR petition challenging Medit Corporation’s patent on digital dentistry technology. The petitioner argues that the claimed 3D scanning methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103, based on combining prior art systems.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S filed an Initial Petition challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner targets multiple claim subsets using Trousset, Durbin, and Kariathungal as evidence of obviousness.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape A/S et al. filed an opening petition challenging Medit Corporation's patent (7912257) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioners argue that the claimed real-time 3D dental scanning method is predictable when combining prior art disclosures from Kopelman and Quadling.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC has initiated a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 held by Songbird Tech, LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims covering voice messaging and web communication systems are unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This challenge targets fundamental components like audio encoding/decoding and browser-resident applications.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. has filed an IPR challenging Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The petition asserts that several claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and multiple combinations of obviousness involving prior art references.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board declined discretionary denial despite arguments regarding parallel litigation and prior art cumulative nature.
Anker Innovations Ltd. v.Powermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9083204) covering Inductive Power Transfer technology. The Board found sufficient evidence of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Onishi, Purdy, Baarman392, and Tocci.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision determining that all 46 challenged claims of the '380 patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully argued obviousness (103) over various prior art references, including Chang, Fang, and Yuen, concerning breast pump systems.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Everest Pharmaceuticals for infringing its patent IN 297581, which covers the compound Osimertinib. The court found that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further hearing.
Baynee Industries v.Rajiv Rosha
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking substantial damages against the defendant, alleging wrongful interference with business due to the defendant's patented product. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, arguing lack of cause of action and correlation between the patent and the alleged business loss. The Court dismissed the application, finding that the plaint, when read as a whole, disclosed sufficient cause of action.
Astrazeneca Ab v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Plc
Astrazeneca filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Beacon Pharmaceuticals and others for infringing its patent (IN 297581) covering the compound Osimertinib. The court, after considering the prima facie case, granted an ad interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering the patented compound in any form.
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.