IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 60 of 159 · 4,764 total
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ wireless‑device patent. Mullen has filed a Director Review request arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under §314(a). The outcome of the review is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,386,024 patent, arguing Samsung’s record is overly voluminous and its six grounds lack particularity. The petition urges denial of institution and referral to district court.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics' IPR against Netlist’s 8,489,837 B1 patent succeeded, finding claims 1‑3,5,6 unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references LeClerg, Lee, and Kim. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB found all 29 claims of Netlist's ’623 memory module patent unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior art references including Hazelzet, Buchmann, and Talbot. Samsung, as petitioner, secured a complete cancellation of the patent claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries requested Director Review of multiple IPRs against Google. The PTAB limited Google’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, giving a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,386,024, arguing procedural waivers and public accessibility of the JEDEC proposal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their IPR dispute, requesting a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within two months.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC and Olympus Corporation have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case, planning to file a stipulation of dismissal and requesting a 45‑day stay of deadlines.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3065184 relating to trench processes for backside contact solar cells. Before the Statement for Revocation was served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Arcelormittal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Arcelormittal appealed an order dated 07.05.2024 which held that its patent application regarding a method for producing tin containing nongrain-oriented silicon steel sheet was neither inventive nor sufficiently disclosed. The court accepted the exemption and issued directions for further proceedings, including filing written synopses by both parties.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v.Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with seizing alleged infringing products using Local Commissioners. Furthermore, it permitted the commissioners to inspect defendants' books of accounts and stock registers related to the disputed goods. This order significantly advances the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction regarding the 'Liv.52' trademark and Himalaya's distinctive trade dress.
Madapes Limited v.Madapes Promo Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Madapes Limited against the defendants. The court recognized that the plaintiff's marks ('MADAPES', 'MAD APES') were being used deceptively by the respondents, leading to claims of passing off and copyright infringement over logos and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific actions, including blocking fraudulent Telegram accounts and taking down an incorrectly registered website, to protect the plaintiff's brand integrity.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Resolute Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Resolute Healthcare & Ors. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'TRYGABA', is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'TRIGABANTIN'. Given that both products treat neuropathic pain and the similarity was intentional (truncation), the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further notice. The injunction allows the defendants a grace period of three months to exhaust their current stock.
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.