IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 73 of 159 · 4,764 total
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Olvo Lubes International & Ors.
In a significant resolution for Volvo, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The defendants formally acknowledged Volvo's exclusive statutory rights and well-known status of the 'VOLVO' trademark in India. As part of the agreement, the defendants committed to paying ₹1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs, effectively concluding the long-running dispute over trademark infringement and passing off.
M/S Kwality Food Products v.Anil Singla @ Anil Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Kwality Food Products against Anil Singla and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the plaintiff has been continuously using the 'Ruchi' marks for spices since 1992, establishing common law rights. Given the identical nature of the goods and deceptive similarity of the packaging, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark to prevent consumer confusion.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch argues that the PTAB correctly rejected P&G’s attempts to reinterpret claim language and that the challenged deodorant stick claims are obvious over prior art. The petition also rebuts P&G’s RPI argument, maintaining that Dr. Squatch was the sole real party in interest.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,295,288 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled all disputes over patent 9,723,878 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and keep the settlement confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,289,016 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 to end the proceeding before a final decision is issued.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged The Procter & Gamble Company’s '706 Patent, arguing that its claims regarding natural deodorants are unpatentable. The petitioner relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness (35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103). These challenges focus on the use of basic concepts and ingredient combinations found in existing prior art.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied the petition to invalidate claims related to small cell enhancements, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning technical limitations in resource scheduling.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenging Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness assertions against multiple prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all 23 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions were anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all six claims of the '904 patent unpatentable. The Board determined that the claimed features were anticipated or obvious over prior art references (Kick, Ackermann, Kaminski, Hutchinson).
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, sets out key legal principles on claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step. The panel (Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß, Judge-Rapporteur András Kupecz, and technically qualified judge Casper Struve) addressed issues including the technical meaning of claim terms, the 'same invention' test for priority, the identification of realistic starting points in the prior art, and the criteria for assessing obviousness and inventive contribution.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step and obviousness. The judgment establishes headnotes on how the skilled person interprets patent claims using the description and drawings, the standard for claiming the 'same invention' for priority purposes, and the framework for evaluating obviousness and inventive contribution.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European patent EP 3 666 797 B1 before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Court of First Instance. The Claimant, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., sought revocation of the patent held by the Defendant, Amgen, Inc., with both parties being competitors in the cholesterol-lowering pharmaceutical market. The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addressed key legal principles including claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and the assessment of inventive step.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 666 797 B1, brought by three Sanofi entities against Amgen, Inc. before the Central Division (Munich Section). The decision, delivered on 16 July 2024 following an oral hearing on 4 June 2024, addresses issues of claim interpretation, priority rights under Article 87 EPC, and inventive step assessment. The judgment establishes key legal principles regarding how the skilled person interprets patent claims, evaluates priority claims, and assesses obviousness based on realistic starting points in the prior art.
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.