IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 77 of 159 · 4,764 total
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
Arm Germany GmbH, Arm lreland Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited, ARM Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, SVF Holdco, Simulity Labs Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands challenges a Request for Director Review filed by BuzzBallz over the eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441, a design patent covering a pop‑top can lid. The petitioner argues the Board correctly found the patent eligible under the AIA and that the new design lacks written‑description support, urging denial of the request.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the BuzzBallz patent case.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
BuzzBallz, LLC asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution of a post‑grant review on its pre‑AIA design patent, arguing the Board misapplied written‑description standards and ignored expert testimony.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands contests the validity of BuzzBallz’s design‑patent for a beverage can lid, arguing that new matter was added to the parent application, making the patent eligible for post‑grant review under the AIA. The reply refutes the patent owner’s reliance on prior PTAB decisions and emphasizes examiner findings of new matter.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging 12 claims of a Bell Semiconductor LLC patent related to Ball Grid Array (BGA) packaging reliability. The petitioner asserts that all claims are unpatentable over prior art by demonstrating predictable modifications using combinations of known semiconductor package designs and stress mitigation techniques.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned for institution of its obviousness challenge against BuzzBallz's beverage container patent (11932441). The Board found that the design application introduced new matter, making the claims eligible for review.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal filed by 10x Genomics against an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) in proceedings involving EP 2 697 391, where 10x's application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience was partly dismissed. After Curio filed its response raising questions of admissibility and necessity of the appeal but did not lodge a cross-appeal, 10x requested withdrawal of its appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and agreed with both parties that the determination of cost reimbursement should be deferred until a final decision in the main proceedings on the merits before the Court of First Instance.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Zuventus Healthcare Limited v.Zaventis Health Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Zuventus Healthcare Limited against Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ZAVENTIS HEALTH CARE,' was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZUVENTUS,' leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This order allows the suit to proceed while restraining the defendant from using any deceptively similar branding in relation to pharmaceutical products.
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.