IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 65 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and video‑codec startup Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over a moving‑picture encoding patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical settled with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents during its IPR against Serendia, leading to a motion to suspend the schedule.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR only for Jeisys Medical Inc. after a settlement with Serendia, while EndyMed remains as a petitioner. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc.'s IPR challenge against Serendia, LLC's '836 patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board determined that the Petitioner's grounds of obviousness over prior art like Ganz were plausible and warranted further proceedings. This decision moves the dispute toward a trial phase in the medical device technology space.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Alertus Technologies against Desktop Alert, Inc.'s patent (9172765). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness and anticipation challenges.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied WIZ, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd., finding that a statutory disclaimer covered all challenged claims.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all unpatentability challenges against the broadhead patent. The Board upheld the patent owner's position on claim construction, specifically defining 'blade member' as having a cutting surface. Despite detailed arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references, the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India and Others
The writ petition challenged an administrative order denying the petitioner access to EV registration linkage data. The petitioner claimed this data was necessary to track sales and claim royalties under his patent related to electric car mechanisms. The court disposed of the petition, stating it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's rights and directing parties to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
University Of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated v.The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for application no. 202017034395, citing non-patentability under Section 3(b). The court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal before directing parties to file replies regarding the main appeal.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim International filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents' order dated April 24, 2024. The core issue is whether the patent application constitutes a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an interim exemption regarding document filing and listed the main appeal for further hearing.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
L&T Valves Limited v.M/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
The World Community Services Centre v.Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by The World Community Services Centre seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust. The dispute, which involved specific service descriptions within Trademark Registration No. 3654426, was resolved amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both parties. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to implement the terms of this compromise.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
Amycel LLC v.***
Amycel LLC filed an application for provisional measures alleging that the Defendant infringed its European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 by selling a brown mushroom strain under the name 'Cayene'. The Defendant raised invalidity arguments, contending that the mushroom strain was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, rejected the exclusion argument, found infringement, and granted the provisional measures sought.
Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_425/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2024 concerning R. 191 RoP APPLICANT 1) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. 1360 South Loop Road 94502 - Alameda - US Represented by Christian Dekoninck RESPONDENTS 1) Dexcom
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.