IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 64 of 159 · 4,764 total
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's patent (9471074) in an IPR, arguing obviousness over Al-Shyoukh in view of Ivanov and Stanescu. The PTAB institution decision granted the petition, proceeding to trial on 18 claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cisco and Fortinet against InfoExpress, finding no reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,350 would be found obvious over prior art.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB found that the claims of the voltage regulator are unpatentable under § 103 based on a combination of Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of key terms, including finding 'gm enhanced' synonymous with 'gm boost.'
Suprajit Engineering Limited v.Shivam Pandey And Ors
Suprajit Engineering Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'SUPRAJIT', passing off, and violating its copyright related to automotive cables. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were deceptively using the mark and trade dress on their goods. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting an injunction and awarding token damages.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Monarch’s ’775 patent, asserting that claims 1 and 6 are obvious over prior‑art MPLS and pseudo‑wire literature, including Aggarwal’s patent and Hussain’s book.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s response to Juniper’s IPR argues that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,130,775 are not obvious, emphasizing that prior‑art references do not disclose a shared link between two pseudo‑wires.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch Networking’s sur‑reply defends the validity of its MPLS‑pseudowire patent against Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed shared‑link architecture.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the cited references do not teach a shared link between two pseudo‑wires and that the petition repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals has filed a PGR petition challenging all 30 claims of Exela Pharma Sciences' L‑cysteine parenteral nutrition patent, asserting lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and, alternatively, obviousness over the Sandoz label.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR, arguing that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over combinations of Wainner, Bocci, and Kamite. The Board found the merits strong and ruled to institute the proceeding, noting prior art was not substantively analyzed by the Examiner.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. initiated an IPR challenging patent 8320566 owned by Entropic Communications LLC, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Cleveland/Hayashino and Scheim/Tzannes, to demonstrate non-patentability in the field of OFDMA/Scrambling.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals' PGR challenge against Exela Pharma Sciences was denied institution because the arguments regarding enablement, written description, and obviousness were largely identical to those previously presented during prosecution. The Board found that the Patent Owner successfully demonstrated how process controls overcome prior rejections, leading to a denial of the petition under § 325(d).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions LLC regarding packet switching claims (Claims 1 and 6). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references, including Wainner/Bocci and Kamite/Bocci.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 6 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references Wainner and Bocci. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's argument that combining these references rendered the claimed method obvious, particularly regarding shared link functionality in pseudo-wires.
Terex India Private Limited v.Cde Asia Ltd.
Terex India Private Limited appealed an order refusing its post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 307249, which was granted to CDE Asia Ltd. The appellant argued that the Deputy Controller's decision failed to provide independent reasoning or address key legal submissions regarding patentability and prior art. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Falcon Autotech Private Limited v.Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Integrated Pre-Sortation System' (Patent No. IN410846). The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to protect its statutory rights against the defendant, who was allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing sorter machines in India without proper licenses.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between M/S Rspl Health Private Limited and Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr. While procedural matters like exemption from certified copies were granted, the core petition seeking removal or rectification of the impugned trademark 'SAGAR SUPREME LABEL' was advanced. The court accepted notice and directed all parties to file their replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the alleged deceptive similarity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the service of a patent infringement complaint on Xiaomi H.K. Limited in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 207 270. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed the question of alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were refused by the requested state's central authority. The court established principles regarding when alternative service is permissible, the absence of judicial censorship of party submissions, and the publication requirements for orders recognizing prior service steps as valid service.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Jeisys Medical Inc. after the parties settled their dispute. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential, and the proceeding remains open only for EndyMed petitioners.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before any substantive briefing or hearing.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia and Jeisys Medical settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have settled their dispute over a dermatology‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate Ilooda’s participation in the pending IPR, requesting the settlement remain confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality rules. The filing cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR provisions.
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.