IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 159 · 4,762 total
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, granting a permanent injunction against Ms. Aparna Mallick and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'KHADISAREE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark 'KHADI'. Furthermore, the Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name and awarded substantial damages and costs against the defendant due to their non-cooperation.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent opposition board recommendation related to Indian Patent No.319927, arguing that the process violated The Patents Act, 1970 by not allowing them to present evidence. The Court quashed the impugned notices and recommendations.
Sumi Agro Limited; Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerns a challenge by Sumi Agro against an order of the Local Division Munich that granted provisional measures against Sumi Agro in relation to European Patent EP 2 152 073. Sumi Agro submitted new facts and evidence in the appeal proceedings, and Syngenta objected to the admission of certain evidence while also seeking to introduce its own new evidence. The Court of Appeal disregarded Exhibit SA17 because Sumi Agro had previously submitted other pages from the same publication before the Court of First Instance, but admitted evidence relating to a possible new version of the contested embodiment (Kagura 2024) following the alleged infringer's statements about a product ingredient change.
HGSystem ApS, Rune Eilertsen, Infotech Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS v.Respondent
This case concerned a review of an ex parte evidence preservation order issued by the Local Division in Copenhagen in relation to European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1. Hybridgenerator ApS, the requesting party, sought confirmation of the order, while HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Infotech Holding ApS sought its revocation or modification. The court conducted a review hearing on November 28, 2024, and issued its ruling on December 19, 2024.
LAMA FRANCE v.Respondent
Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/12/2024 REQUÉRANT LAMA FRANCE 241 Rue du Companet 69140 - Rillieux-la-Pape - FR Représenté par Henri BOURGEOIS DEFENDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause. The Board emphasized that prior case law does not excuse delayed filings.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director has initiated a sua sponte review of three IPRs after the patent owner claimed the petitioners breached a Sotera stipulation by litigating overlapping invalidity arguments in district court. The proceedings are stayed pending a decision on a motion to vacate the institution.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR on their FPGA patent. They contend that recent court delays and the cancellation of a Markman hearing render the Board's discretionary denial inappropriate.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted AMD and Pensando’s request for rehearing, vacated the earlier discretionary denial of institution, and sent the IPR back to the Board for a standard institution decision.
KLIPSTA PTY LTD v.Albanese, Lindsay
Klipsta PTY LTD petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,413,047, asserting that the hat‑holding system is fully anticipated or obvious over numerous international prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all ten claims of X1 Discovery’s 2008 ‘Methods and Systems for Search Indexing’ patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references such as Lotus Notes, Entourage, and academic works.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,985,943, which covers FPGA‑based programmable logic devices for data‑flow processing in servers. The petition asserts obviousness over six prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against X1 Discovery's patent on Information Retrieval/Search Indexing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 103, specifically regarding the combination of prior art references (Wilcox, Londergan, Raskin, Wu).
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. v.XtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against XtreamEdge regarding a PLD patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on key claims. The Board found that the combination of prior art references Seshadri and Biederman provided sufficient grounds for challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v.Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore - I
The appeal challenged the imposition of service tax under the 'Intellectual Property Right' category on payments made by HAL to BAE System for technical knowhow and assistance related to aircraft manufacturing. The Tribunal ruled that since the contract involved a temporary transfer of technology, it did not fall under the definition of IPR services chargeable to service tax.
Gilead Sciences Inc. v.Union of India
Gilead Sciences Inc. challenged a hearing notice and subsequent recommendation made by the Patent Office in a post-grant opposition application filed by Low Cost Standard Therapeutics. The petitioner argued that the process violated the Patents Act, 1970, specifically by denying them an opportunity to present evidence. The High Court quashed the impugned notice and the Board's earlier recommendations.
Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited v.Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a revocation action filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1, which relates to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The claimants sought full revocation of the patent on grounds of added matter, lack of novelty over WO 2007/077255 A2 (Glejboel), and lack of inventive step starting from US 2002/0120236 (Diaz) or Glejboel combined with Diaz and/or US 6,516,950 (Robertson). The defendant raised a preliminary objection under Rules 19(1)(b) and 48 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court held that breach of a standstill clause does not divest the breaching party of the right to bring an action where the temporal restriction is not justified by public interest, though it may give rise to contractual liability.
Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European patent EP 3 918 974 concerning a method and system for determining corrective lens prescriptions, brought an infringement action against Easee B.V., its managing director Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. concerning an online vision test offered via a software application. The defendants raised a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP challenging the court's jurisdiction over the personal liability claim against the individual director. The Hamburg Local Chamber held that an alleged patent infringement constitutes a tort within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and that the UPC therefore has jurisdiction over director liability claims under Article 32 UPCA.
Amycel LLC v.***
1 Intern gebruik The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_499/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/12/2024 regarding R.275 RoP APPLICANT Amycel LLC 260 Westgate Drive - 95076 - Watsonville, California - US Represented by H
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich concerned an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd against Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited regarding European Patent No. 3 611 989. The decision sets out guiding principles on several procedural and substantive issues, including the formal requirements for withdrawing from the opt-out under Rule 5.7 of the Rules of Procedure, the treatment of exhaustion defenses in infringement proceedings, and the FRAND-related defenses arising from the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE ruling and IEEE Letters of Assurance. The court clarified that a patent holder who has made multiple acceptable licensing offers (such as a bilateral portfolio license and a pool license) cannot have its infringement action dismissed if at least one offer meets FRAND requirements.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks PTAB institution of an IPR against Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board properly weighed Fintiv factors and that broad stipulations prevent duplicate litigation. The Patent Owner contests, but the petitioner emphasizes efficiency and fairness.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix, arguing the Director misapplied assignor estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §314(a). The brief cites Federal Circuit precedent that assignor estoppel cannot block IPRs.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that instituted an IPR challenging 16 claims of its 3D‑printing patent. The owner argues the Panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on stipulations, violating recent USPTO guidance.
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.