IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 61 of 218 · 6,517 total
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established a motivation to combine prior art elements, particularly regarding local user control over shared content.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all five challenged claims unpatentable over prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining references like Kaplan/Mardiks and Maeda/Deforche in the field of Audio/Video Conferencing.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris Central Division) seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office dated 10 July 2024. The EPO subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with Qualcomm's request during interlocutory revision. The court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties and without ordering reimbursement of the action fee.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1 concerning wireless inductive power transfer. The Local Chamber Munich found that Belkin's Qi-standard compliant wireless chargers infringed the patent, while dismissing the defendants' counterclaims for invalidity. The court ordered injunctions, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 119,000, but limited the territorial scope to exclude acts within Germany.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. jointly before the same panel.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Court decision.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
Ningbo Linhua Plastic seeks an IPR on Converter Manufacturing’s 10,562,222 patent covering thermoformed plastic trays with smooth edges. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art (Portelli and Meadors) and urges the PTAB to institute the review despite discretionary denial arguments.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering hybrid devices with personal digital keys and receiver‑decoder circuits, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd v.Voiceage Evs Llc
The petitioners sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN405869 before the Delhi High Court. The court granted notice and allowed various interim applications, including directions for respondents to file prosecution records and granting extensions of time for both parties.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited concerning the product Shan6, which allegedly infringes IN 351. The parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute before the Delhi High Court.
Axcess Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner seeks to sustain PTAB institution of an IPR over Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and its broad stipulation blocks discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Feit Electric’s request for review of the Board’s order to deny its motion to terminate IPR2025-00260, finding the request improper under the regulations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on a stipulation. The petition highlights the actual trial date, discovery investment, and identical parties as reasons for discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Feit Electric’s 8604678 LED patent, covering claims 1 and 11‑14, and ordered consolidation with a related IPR. Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
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.