IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 83 of 159 · 4,764 total
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for smaXtec Inc. against ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC after finding sufficient evidence of unpatentability in several claims. The Board specifically found that Claim 5 was anticipated by Harvey and determined there was a reasonable likelihood of obviousness for Claim 7 over Harvey and Rettedal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '266 patent. The Board found that Sony demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing unpatentability, allowing the case to proceed to trial on all 22 challenged claims.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found several claims of the '644 patent unpatentable based on anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that prior art references, specifically Harvey and Riskey, disclosed all elements of key claims related to animal monitoring bolus sensors.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all challenged claims (10-16 and 19) in this IPR regarding solar cell fabrication techniques. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, particularly concerning optimal dopant concentrations.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected citing lack of inventive step and being a mere admixture. The appellant argued that the crucial feature—the formation of a double population structure—was ignored by the respondent. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses in the rejection order, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Fincraft Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahesh Vaman Manjrekar & Ors.
Fincraft Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court to file a suit concerning copyright infringement related to the film 'Natyasamrat-Asa Nat hone Nahin.' The petitioner argued that while most transactions occurred in Mumbai, some agreements were executed in Hyderabad, potentially challenging the court's territorial jurisdiction.
West Bengal Chemical Industries Limited v.M/s. GTZ (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner, an API manufacturer, claimed that the respondents were infringing their patents (IN370845 and IN434424) related to Ferric Carboxymaltose. The petitioner sought an interim injunction against the alleged infringement. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for granting the injunction.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns the extension of deadlines for the reply to the infringement action and the response to the counterclaim for revocation in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court established that while R. 9.3(a) RoP empowers the court to extend deadlines, such extensions should be granted cautiously and only in justified exceptional cases. The court held that restricted access to unredacted submissions due to R. 262A RoP confidentiality requests constitutes such an exceptional case, requiring that the party and its representatives have sufficient time to develop a unified strategy addressing both infringement and validity issues.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan and Foras Technologies filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the IPR, effectively ending the dispute.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, Nissan, and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to withdraw the IPR petition for U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes and requesting termination of the proceeding.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen, ZF Active Safety, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, filing a joint motion to withdraw the IPR. The Board terminated the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement as confidential.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. challenged Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s backside junction solar cell patents (8878053) in a PTAB petition, arguing that claims 9-20 are unpatentable over obvious combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods merely involve predictable substitutions of known elements to achieve improved performance.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. petitioned to invalidate Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8222516) based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining known prior art elements in polysilicon emitter solar cells yields predictable results, and further asserts estoppel against the patent owner regarding previous PTAB decisions.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Ltd.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. petitioned for review of claims related to fault tolerance in lockstep processors, arguing they are obvious combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision signals a significant challenge to the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Maxeon Solar, challenging claims related to solar cell fabrication. The Board found that Canadian Solar demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple obviousness grounds over various prior art combinations. This sets up a high-stakes trial in advanced photovoltaic technology.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Canadian Solar Inc et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 9, 10, and 11 of patent 8222516 were obvious over the combination of Froitzheim and Gan. The Board rejected the challenge to claim 12 due to specific limitations in the prior art references.
Upl Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Upl Limited challenged an order dated February 8, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the order was cryptic and failed to consider all filed documents (D3 and D4) when rejecting amended claims under Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's submissions.
Naveel Danish v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
In this Madras High Court judgment, the court addressed a writ petition seeking direction for the re-examination of Trademark Application No. 55070330. The petitioner sought intervention to compel the Registrar to act on previous representations requesting fresh examination and criminal proceedings. While the initial prayer was broad, the court ultimately directed the Registrar to proceed with fresh orders in accordance with law, ensuring all parties are given a fair opportunity during the process.
Mala Technologies Ltd. v.Nokia Technology GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal by Mala Technologies Ltd. against a decision of the Court of First Instance that rejected Mala's preliminary objection in a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 044 709 B1. Mala requested a stay of the first instance revocation proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal declared the stay request inadmissible because Mala's written statement did not constitute a 'reasoned request' under Rule 21.2 RoP, and further rejected the request on its merits, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
The PTAB granted Qualcomm’s joinder request and instituted inter partes review of Network System Technologies’ NoC patent, covering claims 2,6,9‑16.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,858,534 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet instituted the IPR, and the parties seek confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Medela LLC et al. v.M.E.A.C. Engineering Ltd.
Medela and M.E.A.C. Engineering settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,858,534 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding before any trial, keeping the settlement confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Northern Research entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01044 covering patent RE48,629. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc., Brødrene Hartmann A/S, and The Happy Group Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01037 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent owner Maurice J.P. Tabone. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under its discretionary authority.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group settled their IPR dispute with inventor Maurice Tabone over Patent 10,287,070. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
Court decision.
Qualcomm Incorporated et al. v.Network System Technologies, LLC
Qualcomm challenged Network System Technologies' patent claims related to resource management in Network on Chip (NoC) technology. The petitioner asserts that the claimed functionality is obvious over prior art references by combining known networking techniques.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging E-Vision Smart Optics' '960 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petitioner asserts that foundational concepts like voice commands and proximity detection were disclosed much earlier by competitors. This action targets 26 claims based on combinations of patents including Jannard-740 and Rosenblatt.
Hartmann US Inc. et al. v.Tabone, Maurice
Hartmann US Inc. and The Happy Group Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. 10,287,070 regarding its container design features. Petitioners assert that the claimed elements are obvious over prior art references Beese and King in the food packaging field.
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.