IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 218 · 6,517 total
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,982,109. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Microsoft’s challenge to all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent and granted Microsoft’s motion to join the earlier IPR2024‑00856, consolidating the proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,982,110 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group and Stingray Music contest a late Director review request concerning a music‑licensing patent, urging the PTAB to deny the request on procedural and substantive grounds. The petitioners highlight the patent’s lack of commercialization and the improper submission of new evidence.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft and EyesMatch jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential under business‑confidential rules, invoking 35 U.S.C. §327 and related regulations.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group’s petition challenges a late, unauthorized request by patent owner Edwin Hernandez-Mondragon to submit new evidence in IPR2025-00350. The petition argues the request should be denied for untimely filing and rule violations.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
PTAB denied the petitioners' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs involving DISH Technologies patents.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Court decision.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The Board denied X1 Discovery’s request to extend the deadline for filing a Director Review in three IPRs involving Microsoft, finding no good cause for the late filing.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
The PTAB denied X1 Discovery’s request for an extension to file Director Review briefs in three IPRs against Microsoft, finding no good cause and emphasizing the need for timely filing.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all claims of U.S. Patent 10,524,002, arguing they are obvious or anticipated by earlier web‑broadcast technologies. The petition cites Avellan, Ma, Fain, and Wannamaker as prior art and requests that the Board institute the review.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup CZ and NKL have filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of DISH's adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references. The petition argues strong Graham factors and no discretionary denial grounds.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Stingray Group has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of U.S. Patent 10,123,074, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Avellan and a suite of secondary references.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’110 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of EyesMatch’s ’109 patent, arguing they are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references and that discretionary denial doctrines do not apply.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft seeks to invalidate ParTec’s 11,537,442 patent covering dynamic task allocation in heterogeneous clusters, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lippert, Budenske, and Kambatla. The petition also challenges a potential Fintiv denial.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of X1 Discovery’s U.S. Patent No. 10,552,490 covering search indexing. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu, Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references and urges the Board not to deny institution.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 27 claims of X1 Discovery’s 9,633,139 patent covering incremental multi‑string search. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Lotus Notes, Raskin, Wu and over Entourage, True, and Baeza‑Yates references.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stingray Group against Hernandez-Mondragon, focusing on multimedia streaming patents. The Board found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR against U.S. Patent 10,123,074, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Avellan. The decision confirmed that 'content provider' does not require originating the request.
Microsoft Corporation v.ParTec AG
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against ParTec AG's patent, challenging claims related to heterogeneous computing and dynamic task remapping. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on prior art combinations (Lippert, Budenske, Kambatla).
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against X1 Discovery's patent over information retrieval claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness based on a combination of prior art references, including Wilcox and Londergan. This decision allows Microsoft to proceed with challenging the validity of key search indexing patents.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.X1 Discovery, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation et al. successfully challenged the patentability of X1 Discovery's search indexing claims before the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, leading to institution.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that the patent claims were largely obvious over prior art references Leaning and Gamble in the field of Adaptive Bitrate Streaming. Specifically, Claims 2 and 9 were deemed obvious when combining Leaning with Gamble's TCP protocols.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that all 16 claims of the patent are unpatentable over prior art references, Leaning and Gamble. The Board concluded that the combination of references rendered specific claims obvious, while other claims were anticipated by Leaning alone.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB upheld all claims of the patent in this final written decision after rejecting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'mirror-mimicking' and 'varying rate,' finding the petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Microsoft Corporation v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC successfully convinced the PTAB that all 18 challenged claims of EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted a specific construction for 'mirror tracking mode,' which was central to finding obviousness across multiple grounds.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method involving iron (III) caseinsuccinylate. The Deputy Controller rejected the grant on the grounds that the claimed invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court upheld the respondent's decision.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Aparna Mallick And Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the Khadi & Village Industries Commission, granting a permanent injunction against Ms. Aparna Mallick and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the defendant's use of 'KHADISAREE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-known mark 'KHADI'. Furthermore, the Court ordered the transfer of the infringing domain name and awarded substantial damages and costs against the defendant due to their non-cooperation.
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.