IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 71 of 159 · 4,764 total
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Mr. Vishal Chhatwani
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit against Mr. Vishal Chhatwani alleging infringement across multiple IP domains, including trademark, design, and copyright, related to industrial oils and lubricants. The parties successfully entered into mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement dated July 9, 2024. The court subsequently decreed the suit in favor of Hero Motocorp Limited based on the terms of this settlement, which included an acknowledgment of IP ownership and payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- by the defendants.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision dismissing an opposition against a similar mark (ZORA). The appellant argued that the use of ZORA by a bag manufacturer would exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-known trademark, ZARA, particularly in relation to textiles. While the court granted procedural relief regarding delay condonation and exemption from filing copies, it issued notice to the opposing party (Respondent No. 2) to file a reply, indicating that the substantive dispute over trademark infringement and passing off is yet to be decided.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Jagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite having been provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked proper reasoning regarding both grounds. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation regarding European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril Italy Srl filed the main revocation action, while Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation against the patent proprietor Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant argued, among other grounds, that the patent's subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Brussels concerning an Application for Review filed by the defendants against a prior case management order. The defendants, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought review of Order ORD_37783/2024 of 8 July 2024, which had rejected their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments while granting an extension for filing a Statement of Rejoinder until 1 August 2024. The underlying dispute relates to European Patent EP 2 331 036 and concerns the permissibility of the claimant supplementing factual context, adding equivalence-based infringement arguments, and adjusting the prayer for relief in their Reply to the Statement of Defence.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, which relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve featuring a sealing mechanism to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. The patent was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from two earlier patent applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012. The claimant sought revocation of the patent on grounds including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in the proceedings.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Masaba seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that upheld an obviousness finding on its aggregate transferring system patent. The patent owner contends the Board ignored critical real‑world evidence and mis‑qualified the petitioner’s expert.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute, prompting the PTAB to dismiss IPR2024-01160 before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to dismiss and ordered the settlement kept confidential.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,743, prompting a joint motion to dismiss the pending IPR before it was instituted.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Solaris defends the PTAB's finding that Masaba’s conveyor patent is obvious, emphasizing lack of nexus and proper expert testimony. The response rebuts Masaba’s secondary‑considerations arguments and procedural objections.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Watson Guide IP’s dental guide patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent on back-contact solar cell technology. The petitioner argues that key claims are unpatentable due to obviousness when combining the patented structure with various prior art references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Petitioner Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 covering remote wakeup systems in a PTAB petition. The challenge asserts that the patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Zhang, Zill, Liu).
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.