IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 63 of 218 · 6,517 total
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater Research’s 2017 patent on data‑usage monitoring in mobile devices, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Dolby’s 1993 audio‑compression patent, arguing that all 17 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that the Board should not deny the petition under discretionary statutes.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2024-01396 concerning patent 9647918, vacating a prior decision. The proceeding is now at a procedural standstill.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Dolby International AB's audio signal coding patents was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Roku failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's patent (11667203) covering jump start/battery charging systems. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite the Patent Owner's counterarguments regarding technical limitations.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining Richardson's jump starter apparatus with Zhao's USB step-up charging technology, and through other combinations involving Epower/Krieger references.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Headout Inc. v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors.
Headout Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against the defendants in the Delhi High Court, addressing claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of confusingly similar marks related to travel services. Furthermore, specific mandatory directions were issued compelling the defendants to immediately take down, block, and suspend all infringing websites, domain names, and social media profiles.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Declaration of Kerry Litvin submitted by Iarnach Technologies in response to Charter Communications' IPR petition.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute before the PTAB could institute a trial, leading to termination of both proceedings and confidential treatment of the settlement agreement.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of several IPRs against Motorola Solutions, alleging misapplication of the Fintiv discretionary factors. The petition seeks reversal of the institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and other crypto platforms settled their IPR dispute with Intercurrency Software, leading the PTAB to dismiss the challenges to patent 10,776,863.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates withdrew their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software after reaching a settlement, prompting the Board to dismiss the proceeding.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related entities filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software, arguing that the case should be dismissed before any merits are decided.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its IPRs on body‑worn and in‑car camera patents, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that bars discretionary denial when a Sotera stipulation exists. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the extensive resources invested in challenging all 160 claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,986,585 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination after settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing filed a joint request with the PTAB to have their settlement materials treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent holder K.Mizra have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
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.