IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 75 of 159 · 4,764 total
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.
Trove Brands, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's second IPR petition against Yangtze Memory's 3D memory patent (10,879,254), citing the overlap of asserted prior art knowledge with a previously instituted review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against FaceTec, Inc., regarding facial recognition technology patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, despite patent owner arguments concerning prior art and related litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against KP Innovations was denied institution by the PTAB, despite arguments of anticipation and obviousness. The Board cited concerns over inefficient use of time and resources to decline institution, though a dissent argued for prevailing likelihood.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh And ... v.Suresh Kumar Suman
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh & Co. KG, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit apparel using the identical trademark 'HUGO BOSS' in South Delhi. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief after the defendant failed to file a written statement despite being served.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Anr. v.Voiceage Evs Llc & Anr.
The petitioners filed a petition seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. IN 322739 under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing smartphones, expressed concern over potential wrongful enforcement of this patent by the respondent. The court accepted notice and granted both respondents six weeks to file their respective replies.
Rhodia Operations v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the rejection of its patent application for an esteramide compound by the Deputy Controller of Patents. The respondent rejected the claim as lacking inventive steps. The High Court found that the rejection was based on general observations and failed to address specific arguments made by the appellant regarding prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed.
ITC Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
ITC Limited filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs' order dated April 8, 2024. The original order rejected a post-grant opposition filed by ITC against Patent No. 377333 and denied relief for patent revocation.
Asian Paints Limited v.John Doe And Others
Asian Paints Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of trademark infringement and passing off. The Delhi High Court granted orders directing various parties—including Domain Name Registrars, banks, and mobile service providers—to suspend specific infringing websites and freeze associated bank accounts. This decisive order aims to immediately halt the sale of counterfeit products using the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark across e-commerce platforms.
Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks, Trade Marks Registry, New Delhi
The Delhi High Court overturned a trademark refusal order in favor of Shenzhen Hottech Electronics Co Ltd. The appeal was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, as the appellant claimed they were never properly served with the Show Cause Notice before the Examiner's hearing. Citing established legal precedents, the court held that administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions must afford parties a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the refusal order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh consideration after granting due process.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5948/CHENP/2014) for a hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), known as Rimegepant, by the Indian Patent Office. The opposition was primarily based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, arguing that enhanced bioavailability alone does not guarantee patentability. The High Court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued a procedural order referring both the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the plaintiff's auxiliary request for patent amendment to the Central Chamber Paris. The referral was granted because nearly all attacks raised in the counterclaim were already being pursued in an earlier central revocation action filed by Defendant 1, making parallel proceedings before two different panels inefficient. The court rejected the defendants' objections regarding the risk of divergent decisions, language change costs, and the advancement of central proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for information contained in its unredacted reply and attachments, as well as for negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The Local Chamber Mannheim had previously issued an interim order on April 30, 2024, provisionally classifying certain information regarding patent license agreements and related negotiations as confidential. The presiding judge Dr. Tochtermann issued the present order addressing the scope of confidentiality protection in connection with Panasonic's application for production of evidence.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerns the referral of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 4 074 373 to the Central Chamber Paris. The plaintiff MED-EL filed an infringement action against three Advanced Bionics entities, and defendants 2 and 3 counterclaimed for revocation. Because nearly identical revocation attacks were already pending before the Central Chamber Paris (filed earlier by Defendant 1), the Local Chamber exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) of the UPC Agreement to refer the counterclaim to the Central Chamber for consolidated proceedings.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns a procedural dispute in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The defendants, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH, requested an extension of the deadline to file their Duplik (reply) to the infringement claim, the reply to the counterclaim for revocation, and the response to the patent amendment request, until September 17, 2024. The court found that the plaintiff's practice of filing a redacted 'unredacted version' of its reply, with redacted portions serving as placeholders for later submissions, was impermissible, but granted an exception since this issue was being addressed for the first time.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners seek rehearing of the Director’s order that denied institution of an IPR against Mullen’s 2021 wireless‑technology patent. They argue the Director misapplied discretionary denial standards, ignored the Sotera stipulation, and retroactively applied policy changes. The petition asks the Board to reinstate the original institution decision.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 USC 317(b). The Board is asked to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit access.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and co‑petitioners filed an authorized response urging the PTAB to uphold the institution of IPR2025‑00019 against Mullen Industries’ patent 9,204,283. The brief emphasizes minimal claim overlap, strong petition merits, and the inapplicability of discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision instituting an IPR against its wireless‑device‑location patent. The request argues the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the IPR would duplicate parallel district‑court litigation.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The PTAB upheld its denial of institution in IPR2025-00018, finding that a parallel district‑court trial and weak petition merits justified the decision. Patent Owner’s response reinforces the Director’s discretionary authority under § 314(d).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,122,418 patent. The owner contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The USPTO denied Google and Samsung’s request for rehearing of a Director Review order that vacated the institution of an IPR against Mullen Industries. The denial applies to four related IPRs.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
An email from the PTAB Director notifies Google and Mullen Industries that Director Review requests for IPR2025-00018 and three related IPRs have been received. Google may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime have settled all disputes surrounding U.S. Patent 10,740,281. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek and Daedalus Prime reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 10,740,281 after institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Sheha and a new set of Randall‑based grounds. The petition asserts no discretionary denial grounds and requests institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Mullen Industries’ location‑sharing patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art combinations and arguing no discretionary denial grounds exist.
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.