IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 67 of 218 · 6,517 total
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against InterDigital's patent 8737933, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Microsoft. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to secure discretionary denial, moving the case to the merits phase.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s glucose monitoring patent (11298056). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103) for claims 13 and 29.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Ms. Bhupinder Mehta v.Sh Pradeep Bareja & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (Application No. 5149074) in Class-11. The petitioner alleged that the respondent dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark, which was identical to her prior registered trademark. While some procedural applications were disposed of, the court formally issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies, moving the core dispute forward.
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review disputes over U.S. Patent 9,775,774, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests the USPTO Director to vacate the institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that the Fintiv factors favor denial.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774. The parties jointly filed a motion requesting the Board terminate the proceeding before any oral hearing.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a settlement‑based termination for Jeisys Medical in three IPRs while allowing the proceedings to continue for EndyMed. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request in IPR2024-00383 to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The parties seek to have the agreement treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
During an IPR hearing, Jeisys Medical announced a settlement with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents, seeking to suspend the schedule until November 20.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,775,774 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Court decision.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00391 concerning U.S. Patent 8,141,784. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties request termination to conserve resources.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the patent record.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore LP challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,141,784 in the PTAB, asserting that the claims are unpatentable over prior art references Tolonen and Katz. The petitioner argues that the core features of the patent—such as EIR terminals connecting chipsets to baseband software—are anticipated or obvious based on these older technologies.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. challenged Serendia, LLC's '774 patent in an IPR petition, asserting that claims are anticipated by Mehta and rendered obvious through combinations involving Na ’848 and Lee. The petition focuses on the unpatentability of medical device claims related to dermatological treatment/microneedling.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 13 and 14 of Serendia's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of anticipation by the prior art reference Mehta. The case moves to trial phase after rejecting arguments for discretionary denial based on competitor relationships.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent No. 1 838 002 B1 relating to a programmable hybrid transmitter. The defendants filed nullity counterclaims. The Local Chamber Munich held that the independent claims 1 and 7 were anticipated by prior art document D3, declared the patent null and void for Germany, rejected the requests for amendment, and dismissed the infringement claim, ordering Avago to bear the costs.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The defendants (Apple entities) sought to classify certain information as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, holding that information regarding profit margins, technical functionalities of the accused products, and the identities of employees with access to such information qualifies as confidential, including negative facts stating that certain products do not support certain functionalities.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. and Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which relates to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) standard technology. The defendants raised non-infringement, exhaustion, and FRAND/competition law defenses, along with three counterclaims for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including deadlines for submissions, appointment of a court expert for translations, and scheduling of the oral hearing.
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al. v.Columbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
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.