IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 73 of 218 · 6,517 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that Cisco’s high‑speed packet‑processing claims are unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board erred in accepting a new reply theory and misapplied inherency standards.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Feit Electric’s 8,604,678 patent, asserting that its claims on white‑light LED devices with TiO₂ diffusing layers are obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 12, and 25‑26 of Saris’s ’394 bicycle‑trainer patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Zwinkels and obvious over Zwinkels alone or combined with Papadopoulos. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lionra Technologies' U.S. Patent 7,738,471 covering high‑speed packet processing. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks an IPR to invalidate 13 claims of a media‑measurement patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, arguing obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR review of U.S. Patent 10,719,848 covering media‑measurement methods, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over prior art and lack written‑description support for video‑data features.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies has initiated an IPR challenging the patentability of barocaloric cooling and heating agents held by Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Xie, Mañosa, and Patel.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to institution of IPR proceedings against Feit Electric Company, Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple combinations of prior art references regarding LED lighting technology.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics' attempt to invalidate claims in the '849 patent failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that the patent owner successfully established priority dating back to 2005, rendering the cited prior art ineffective against the challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s attempt to invalidate Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the patent description sufficiently broad to cover video data samples, defeating the obviousness challenge over prior art references.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenging Garmin's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art anticipation and obviousness arguments against the '394 patent.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Lionra Technologies regarding patent 7,738,471, challenging claims related to high-speed packet header processing.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '656 patent, challenging claims related to barocaloric cooling agents. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of 'organic material,' supporting the Petitioner's argument that the claimed invention is unpatentable over prior art references like Mañosa and Patel.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH and Others v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. (Language of Proceedings Order)
Seven defendants in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Düsseldorf applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP3065184 was granted. The claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., objected. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the application was admissible despite being lodged in English, and that the balance of interests favored the defendants since both parties are international companies with significant internal resources, making the defendants' position decisive.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns Ericsson's application to amend its claims in preliminary injunction proceedings against ASUSTek, Arvato Netherlands, and Digital River Ireland regarding European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The amendment unconditionally limited the original claims, particularly recharacterizing Defendant Arvato from a direct infringer under Article 25(a) UPCA to an intermediary under Article 62(1) UPCA. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Lisbon Local Division) granted the amendment under Rule 263.3 RoP, as the defendants did not oppose the changes and the amendments narrowed the scope of the original claims.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok’s Director Review request to invalidate a media‑aggregation patent was denied. The Board found TikTok’s claim mappings incoherent and noted the introduction of new, unauthorized arguments.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has petitioned the PTAB Director to review a panel's denial of institution for its challenge to a media‑feed aggregation patent, arguing the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier decisions on identical claims.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports opposes SportsCastr’s request for Director Review, contending the Board properly analyzed the webserver limitation and that PANDA’s arguments were waived. The Board’s decision should stand and the request be denied.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
The USPTO denied TikTok's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving NTECH's patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok’s request for a Director Review of the USPTO’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against NTECH Properties was denied. The Board affirmed the original institution denial, leaving the patent challenge unresolved.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
Court decision.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
SportsCastr requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 1‑11 of its video‑streaming patent unpatentable. The Owner asserts the Board ignored the “webserver” limitation, an error that warrants reversal.
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.