IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 85 of 159 · 4,764 total
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC initiated an IPR challenging patent 7428082, arguing that several claims are unpatentable under §§ 102 and 103. The challenge relies heavily on combining prior art references Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga to demonstrate obviousness. The PTAB found factors favoring institution, allowing the review process to proceed.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,482,638 based on obviousness (103) using prior art references Parulski and Safonov. The petitioner argues that combining these references would motivate POSITAs to apply conventional image processing techniques like alpha blending. This petition has been instituted by the PTAB.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA's IPR petition challenging Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed technology, related to retail/warehouse automation and inventory management, was obvious over the cited prior art references.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenge against a wireless communications patent covering network service plan provisioning. The Petitioner, Cellco/Verizon Wireless et al., successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This sets the stage for a full trial proceeding on all 42 challenged claims.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR for Arashi Vision (Insta360) against GoPro, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1, 6, and 7. The Board found that the combination of Meulen and Chao renders these aspect ratio conversion claims obvious under 103.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al., leading to a finding of reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The Board found that petitioner's combination of prior art references Kuwata and Fisher, along with Ohga, supported grounds for both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
Google LLC successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of the '638 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The PTAB granted institution, allowing Google to proceed with a substantive review against the patent owner's camera system technology.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that several claims of the '832 patent were unpatentable over prior art references. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 7–12, and 17–20 were found invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 6 and 7 unpatentable based on obviousness (103) over prior art references Meulen and Chao. The Board adopted the Petitioner's claim construction for 'non-uniformly shifts the pixels,' which was critical to the findings. Claim 1 survived because it was interpreted as relating to external media sources, not internal camera content.
Google LLC v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The PTAB found all ten challenged claims unpatentable over prior art (Kuwata, Fisher, and Ohga). The Board concluded that combining Kuwata's image processing capabilities with network functionality from Fisher and color profile data from Ohga was obvious. This decision provides strong support for the Petitioner's position regarding the combination of existing technologies in digital imaging control.
Ajinomoto Co., INC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Ajinomoto Co. appealed the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 4039/CHENP/2014). The core issue was whether the Authority complied with Section 13(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, which requires examination of amended specifications in a manner similar to the original specification. The High Court found that this procedure had not been followed.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Paris) requiring it to provide security for legal costs of €400,000 in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 3000239. ICPillar requested suspensive effect of the impugned order or, alternatively, expedition of the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected both requests, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect and no urgency warranting expedition of the proceedings.
Umedwings Netherlands B.V., Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European patent EP 3 831 283 relating to an on-body glucose sensor device, applied for provisional measures including a preliminary injunction against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The defendants did not oppose the facts presented. The Court of First Instance denied the application, holding that on the balance of probabilities the patent would more likely than not be held invalid in proceedings on the merits due to added matter extending beyond the content of the application as filed.
Apple GmbH, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG Maximilianstr
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division DÜSSELDORF pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) issued on 18/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Google Ireland Ltd Gordon House, Barrow Street 4
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,639,811. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01051 concerning patent 8,639,811. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for termination.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,639,811 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics is challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,639,811 by asserting that the claimed network policy management features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies for bandwidth control and prioritization would have been routine knowledge to a POSITA.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
BOTE challenges Twitch LLC's inflatable watercraft patent (9862466) alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Hoffmann, Swan, and Hoge. The petitioner argues that combining these sources makes the claimed features predictable in paddlecraft design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Headwater Research LLC's patent (8639811) regarding wireless device provisioning and access control. The Board found reasonable likelihood that dependent claim 4 would be obvious over the combination of prior art references Rao and Jones.
BOTE, LLC v.STEAMBOAT PADDLESPORTS, LLC.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 20 claims covering inflatable paddle boards. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the challenger, BOTE, LLC, would prevail on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Hoffmann and Hoge.
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier rejection of its opposition against a competing trademark application. The court found that the respondent's mark, which featured an elephant device and the word 'Haathi,' was deceptively similar to the appellant's registered 'JUMBO' mark for tea and spices. Given that both parties operate in the same market and consumers associate the elephant motif with the goods, the court ruled that the similarity would inevitably lead to consumer confusion.
Amir Biri Factory And Ors. v.Sk Faruk
The Calcutta High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit between Amir Biri Factory And Ors. and Sk Faruk after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement agreement. The core of the settlement involves Sk Faruk agreeing to cease using certain disputed marks (like 'JULFIKAR TARE A-1 KHAINI') in connection with goods outside Chewing Tobacco/Khaini, while also accepting modifications to their mark usage. Furthermore, Sk Faruk committed to exhausting existing stock within one month and agreed not to raise further legal claims related to the dispute.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Respondent
The plaintiff, an Austrian machine and plant engineering company, sought permission to serve its infringement complaint on a Turkish defendant at the defendant's trade fair stand at the PRS Europe fair in Amsterdam on June 19/20, 2024. The court held that under Rule 271.5(a) of the Rules of Procedure, service may be effected at any location within contracting member states where a company has a permanent or temporary business establishment, and that a trade fair stand qualifies as such when, as is typically the case, deliveries are also promoted there. The court ordered service at the specified trade fair address and directed the plaintiff to initially bear the costs of such service.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Audi AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. Audi had appealed a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). After NST filed its Statement of response, Audi sought permission to file additional pleadings to correct certain facts submitted by NST regarding its market behavior. The Court of Appeal allowed the request, finding Rules 35 and 36 RoP applicable mutatis mutandis in appeal proceedings and that Audi's request was sufficiently reasoned.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Volkswagen AG's request to be allowed to lodge additional written pleadings in appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute involves Volkswagen's appeal of a Court of First Instance decision denying its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. The Court of Appeal allowed Volkswagen's request to file an additional statement to correct facts submitted by NST, and granted NST 14 days to respond.
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.