IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 84 of 159 · 4,764 total
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has filed a Petition challenging claims related to portrait mode image processing, asserting obviousness over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner argues that combining existing techniques like background blurring with sharpness enhancement renders the patented invention obvious.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging the validity of patent 7454056, which covers color balance correction and face detection technologies. The Petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Yano, Schroder, Kuwata, and Nakamura. This challenge targets core image processing methods used in digital imaging.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has challenged a patent covering image enhancement and object detection methods before the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining known face detection techniques with existing image processing apparatuses renders all 12 claimed methods unpatentable under Section 103. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation involving Google LLC in district court.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge a patent covering image processing techniques, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
Luxottica of America Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB against E-Vision Optics, LLC regarding wearable electronics claims in IPR2024-01072. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Jannard for several key claims. This decision moves the case toward trial and confirms the validity of Luxottica's challenge.
NPX USA, Inc. et al. v.Bell Northern Research, LLC
NPX USA successfully petitioned to have Bell Northern Research's wireless communication patents instituted for obviousness under § 103. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, including Jones and 802.11a, renders multiple claims unpatentable. This institution decision sets a strong precedent regarding OFDM technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase in this IPR, securing institution on several claims related to color balance correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Claim 1 based on combinations of prior art references (Yano and Schröder).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC's IPR petition against a patent covering image processing methods was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds, specifically regarding obviousness over prior art references like Luo-250.
Luxottica of America Inc., et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found all 26 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features of smart eyewear were taught by combinations of prior art references, including Jannard, Rosenblatt, Chen, and Nielsen. This final decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the wearable technology space.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for a majority of challenged claims (Claims 1–9 and 12–19) based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board relied heavily on prior art references, notably Brunton, to establish these findings in the field of smart eyeglasses electronics integration.
Luxottica of America Inc. et al. v.E-Vision Optics, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.
Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg. v.Saneet Gmbh and Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed a petition filed by Jaco Dr. Jaeniche Gmbh And Co. Kg., leading to the removal of an identical trademark registration held by Saneet Gmbh and Anr. The court found that the Petitioner was the prior user and proprietor of the mark 'JACO,' which possessed extensive international reputation and goodwill spilling over into India. Given the Respondent's failure to contest the matter despite multiple opportunities, the Court ruled that the impugned registration was fraudulent and contrary to honest trade practices, thereby protecting the Petitioner's rights.
Hytrans Beheer B.V. v.Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.
The Bombay High Court set aside an earlier refusal order issued by the Trade Marks Examiner regarding the 'HYTRANS' trademark application. The court found that the original decision was cryptic, citing only sections of the Act without providing sufficient reasons or considering the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter has been remanded to the Registrar for a fresh, reasoned hearing by a different officer.
Mineral Earth Sciences Llc v.X Development Llc
The Bombay High Court addressed the ongoing dispute between Mineral Earth Sciences Llc and X Development Llc concerning trademark matters. While no final decision was rendered on this date, the court maintained that any interim relief previously granted in the matter would continue to be effective until the next hearing date. The case is scheduled for further consideration on August 2nd, 2023.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Curio Bioscience Inc. under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that a non-appealed R.262A RoP order by the Court of First Instance restricting access to certain information continues to apply in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that no new protective order is necessary when the same already-protected information is contained in documents lodged in the appeal. The Court accordingly found Curio's request for a new protective order to be superfluous.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together under Article 33(3)(a) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review of US Patent 11,906,794 after reaching a settlement, citing resolved disputes and early‑stage proceedings.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,880,075 B1. The parties filed a joint motion to withdraw the IPR petition, and the Board terminated the proceeding, sealing the settlement agreement as confidential.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,880,075. The parties jointly requested the settlement be kept confidential and moved to withdraw the petition, ending the proceeding.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision (Insta360) submits a response urging the Director to deny GoPro’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied obviousness analysis to the Thomason and Voss references and that GoPro’s new arguments are forfeited or lack a nexus. No procedural error is identified, and the Director should reject the review.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
GoPro has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s finding that Insta360’s claims 7‑8 and 17‑18 are unpatentable. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis, ignored unpredictable‑effect evidence, and misinterpreted claim language.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon, T‑Mobile, AT&T and Headwater Research have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 8,924,543 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter‑partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The USPTO denied Insta360’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on GoPro’s camera patent (US 11,336,832). The denial leaves the original PTAB ruling in place.
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against NXP’s challenge to ParkerVision’s ’177 patent, focusing on claim 14, and granted NXP’s motion to join the parallel Texas Instruments IPR.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless and other carriers settled with Headwater Research, leading to the termination of an IPR over patent 8,924,543 B2. The Board granted the joint motion to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,906,794 fiber‑optic connector patent, asserting lack of written description and that all 20 claims are anticipated or obvious over Takano and other prior art.
Senko Advanced Components v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components challenged US Conec Ltd.'s patent covering fiber optic connector designs, asserting that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition targets multiple claims using grounds based on Section 103 (obviousness).
NXP USA, INC. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
NXP USA, INC. has filed a Petition challenging 36 claims of ParkerVision's patent (9118528) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed frequency down-conversion receiver structures are rendered obvious by combining various prior art references, including Tayloe and TI Datasheet.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC has initiated an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,486,807, asserting that the patent claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references. The petitioner argues that existing technology in image retrieval and keyword classification renders the patented features unpatentable under Sections 102 and 103 of Title 35.
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.