IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 78 of 218 · 6,517 total
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging 26 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '251 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that known techniques for translating generic commands into platform-specific code render the claimed media playback control system predictable. This challenge involves complex combinations of prior art references like Aldrey and Mahajan.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under § 103(a) based on combinations of prior art (Aldrey and Mahajan). However, the Board upheld the patentability of claims 1-21, concluding that Calvert did not remedy the necessary 'converting' step.
Nnova And Company v.Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition following a settlement between Nnova And Company and Nitin Gupta Trading As Krishna Agencies. The court cancelled the registered trademark 'GLOWNOWO' (No. 3830607) in Class-03, which was deemed deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark NOVA. In exchange, the respondent agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks and committed to using a specific label format for 'Glownow', ensuring distinctiveness from the original brand.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is a provisional procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP4108782. The defendant Vizgen sought production of five categories of documents under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which had been disclosed in parallel US proceedings but were restricted under a US Protective Order. The court granted only the request for production of the license agreement between Harvard and ReadCoor, Inc. dated September 9, 2019, and rejected the remaining four requests as either lacking specificity or relating to competition law matters outside the court's jurisdiction.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera patents against a Director Review request. The company argues that the PTAB must honor prior USPTO guidance and a Sotera stipulation, rejecting any discretionary denial.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB notified the parties that the patent owner filed Director Review requests for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314. Motorola Solutions, the petitioner, may file a concise response within five business days, limited to the issues raised.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto‑trading entities settled their dispute with Intercurrency Software, resulting in the Board terminating four IPRs before trial. The settlement agreement was kept confidential per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding OU and related crypto firms settled with Intercurrency Software LLC, filing an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petitions. The PTAB granted the motion and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and affiliates filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition against Intercurrency Software's patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized filing the withdrawal motion, and the parties seek dismissal of the proceeding.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its body‑worn and in‑car camera IPRs against a Director Review request, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that barred discretionary denial of institution. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the unfairness of retroactive policy changes.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC petitions the PTAB Director to overturn institution decisions for Motorola Solutions' patents, alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and abused discretion under § 314(a). The request focuses on claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 10,965,910.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01313, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and gave undue weight to Motorola’s stipulation. The petition seeks a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑owners filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR against Intercurrency Software’s foreign‑exchange trading patent after reaching a settlement. The Board authorized the withdrawal request pending the patent owner’s mandatory notices.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB Director sent an email informing Motorola Solutions and Stellar that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2024-01284, 01285, 01313, and 01314, and that the petitioner must respond within five business days with a five‑page limit and no new evidence.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑founders have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 18 claims of Intercurrency Software’s 2018 ‘107 patent covering currency‑conversion trading platforms, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art standards and patents. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions petitions the PTAB to invalidate Stellar’s 10,523,901 surveillance‑camera patent, arguing all 25 claims are obvious over a mix of prior‑art references.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap and co‑owners have petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Intercurrency Software’s 2018 patent covering cross‑border currency conversion in trading platforms, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art systems.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging Stellar’s U.S. Patent 10,965,910 covering loop‑recording surveillance devices. The petition alleges obviousness over several pre‑AIA references and requests cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned for the IPR institution on 20 claims of Stellar's '910 patent. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness to overcome the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial, allowing the substantive challenge to proceed.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions IPR against Stellar LLC. Institution was ultimately denied, aligning with prior findings that weighed factors against proceeding.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully secured institution at the PTAB for its IPR challenge against Stellar, LLC's patent (10523901). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on all grounds, despite Patent Owner arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, citing the need to maintain system integrity.
Ubiquiti Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures I
Ubiquiti Inc.'s IPR challenge against Intellectual Ventures I LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, particularly regarding the key SIFS limitation in wireless communication claims.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 057 321. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) (TCL entities) filed an amended application for protection of confidential information regarding their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, after reaching an agreement with the Claimant on the terms of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the application, classifying specified information and annexes as confidential and restricting access to named representatives and their teams.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a Rule 262A RoP confidentiality request in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 645 714. Defendants 1), 3), 4) and 6) sought protection of confidential information in their FRAND Counterclaim and Statement of defence, and after the parties reached an understanding on the applicable confidentiality club, the court granted the amended application. The court classified specific information as confidential, restricted access to designated representatives and their teams, and imposed a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 for any culpable breach of the confidentiality obligations.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317. The motion seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR for patent 7,912,257. The motion cites settlement, lack of a preliminary response, and no institution decision as grounds for termination.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have entered a settlement, and 3Shape filed a joint request to keep the agreement confidential under patent law provisions. The motion seeks to limit disclosure to federal agencies or parties with good cause.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Court decision.
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.