IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 83 of 218 · 6,517 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC and Olympus Corporation have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case, planning to file a stipulation of dismissal and requesting a 45‑day stay of deadlines.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in the IPR against Mullen Industries' patent '11096039', demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board favorably construed key terms, finding that 'location access rights' encompass group permissions, which supports the Petitioner's case.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found that Samsung Electronics demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its IPR challenge against Netlist, Inc.'s memory module patents. The Board determined the Office erred in its prior evaluation and applied collateral estoppel to support the petitioner's obviousness arguments over Hazelzet and Buchmann.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A., GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3065184. Before the Statement for Revocation had been served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Arcelormittal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Arcelormittal appealed an order dated 07.05.2024 which held that its patent application regarding a method for producing tin containing nongrain-oriented silicon steel sheet was neither inventive nor sufficiently disclosed. The court accepted the exemption and issued directions for further proceedings, including filing written synopses by both parties.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v.Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with seizing alleged infringing products using Local Commissioners. Furthermore, it permitted the commissioners to inspect defendants' books of accounts and stock registers related to the disputed goods. This order significantly advances the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction regarding the 'Liv.52' trademark and Himalaya's distinctive trade dress.
Madapes Limited v.Madapes Promo Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Madapes Limited against the defendants. The court recognized that the plaintiff's marks ('MADAPES', 'MAD APES') were being used deceptively by the respondents, leading to claims of passing off and copyright infringement over logos and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific actions, including blocking fraudulent Telegram accounts and taking down an incorrectly registered website, to protect the plaintiff's brand integrity.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Resolute Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Resolute Healthcare & Ors. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'TRYGABA', is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'TRIGABANTIN'. Given that both products treat neuropathic pain and the similarity was intentional (truncation), the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further notice. The injunction allows the defendants a grace period of three months to exhaust their current stock.
Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v.Registrar of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company & Ors.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell fabrication patent (8878053). The petitioner argues that the claimed processes are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 by combining known elements from prior art references like Froitzheim, Gan, and Smith. The Board noted that discretionary denial was unwarranted due to factors related to multiple petitions.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to a trial decision. The Board found that Hanwha demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite arguments regarding prior art scope and predictability.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent (11251315). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for claims 10-20 over combinations of prior art references like Choi, Granek, and Marvin.
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.