IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 86 of 159 · 4,764 total
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.'s patent (8446823) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods for managing traffic peaks and delay sensitivity in videoconferencing are predictable combinations of known prior art techniques. This challenge targets core data flow control mechanisms used in multi-party packet networks.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Video Solutions Pte. Ltd.
Cisco Systems lost its IPR challenge against Video Solutions Pte. Ltd., with the PTAB rejecting claims of obviousness over Larson and Cai. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide sufficient technical explanation for how a person skilled in the art would combine prior art references.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for information contained in a written submission filed outside the regular deadline regime on May 24, 2024. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited) left the decision to the court's discretion but argued that the information may not be confidential since Tesla's sales prices and vehicle production figures are publicly available. The Local Chamber Munich granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information is not publicly accessible.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent 1 838 002. The defendants (Tesla entities) had filed a written submission outside the regular deadline regime and sought confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the applicable procedural rules for certain commercially sensitive information contained therein. The court granted the confidentiality protection, finding it credible that the requested information was not publicly accessible, and imposed restrictions on the plaintiff's internal access to the designated information.
Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This case concerns a request by the defendants (Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited) for confidential treatment of two exhibits (Confidential Exhibit SA-1 and Confidential Exhibit SA-9) filed in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 152 073. The claimant (Syngenta Limited) did not formally object to the confidentiality request and provided a list of employees within its group who would have access to the confidential information. The Presiding Judge granted the application, ordering that the information be treated as strictly confidential and not used or disclosed outside the proceedings.
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway petitions the PTAB to invalidate 24 claims of Intex’s frame‑pool patent, asserting indefiniteness, lack of written description, and obviousness over Intex’s own products and prior patents (Liu, Hunter).
BESTWAY (USA), INC. et al. v.Intex Marketing Ltd. et al.
Bestway challenged Intex's patent, but the PTAB denied institution because Intex had statutorily disclaimed all claims. The Board also declined to enter an adverse judgment against Intex.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,667,304 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317 and cites the lack of a final written decision.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute the IPR against Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,142,659.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential. The motion asks the PTAB to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under statutory provisions.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,291,236, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The Board cited public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and treated the agreement as confidential business information.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Ericsson's 10,142,659 patent covering a deblocking filter in video codecs. Intel argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards regarding result‑effective variables. The petition seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku petitions the PTAB challenging 15 claims of VideoLabs' patent (8,291,236) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art reference Russ. The petitioner argues that the prior art fully discloses the system structure for content access control bridging two security domains. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the parties.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel and others challenged Ericsson's '659 Patent, arguing that its deblocking filter equations are obvious over prior art references like Fu and Bjontegaard. The petition asserts that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have routinely optimized the claimed coefficients using existing knowledge of high-pass filters.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
The PTAB denied Intel's IPR against Ericsson, finding that the combination of prior art references did not teach or suggest the claimed limitations. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding the technical differences in filtering processes and failed to find a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
Intel Corporation et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Intel Corporation's attempt to invalidate Ericsson's video coding patent was denied by the PTAB on obviousness grounds (103). The Board ruled that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that specific numerical coefficients in the claimed offset equations were 'result-effective variables.'
Srinivas S. Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S. Devathi challenged the Union of India's refusal to provide a consent letter required under Section 86 of the CPC to initiate legal action against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The petitioner alleged that USPTO committed fraud by issuing a fabricated International Search Report (ISR) for his PCT application, thereby jeopardizing his global patent rights. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the non-speaking order of the Ministry of External Affairs and directing the Union of India to reconsider the matter and issue a reasoned decision within six months.
ATLAS COPCO AIRPOWER NAAMLOZE VENNOOTSCHAP v.THE CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS AND ANR
The petitioner company filed an appeal (IPDPTA/12/2022) which was dismissed for default. The petitioner sought condonation of a 330-day delay, citing being based in Belgium and unaware of the transfer of IPAB matters to the High Court due to legal changes and COVID-19. The court found sufficient cause and allowed the delay, restoring the appeal.
Srinivas S Devathi v.Union of India
Srinivas S Devathi filed a writ petition alleging that the USPTO, acting as an International Search Authority (ISA), fabricated an International Search Report (ISR) for his patent application (US Patent No. 8910998 B1). He claimed this fraud led to the rejection of his patent rights globally. The petitioner sought directions from the Union of India to initiate legal action against USPTO and WIPO. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the claims required extensive evidence and were outside writ jurisdiction, and given the prior requirement for consent under Section 86 of the CPC, the present petition was premature and not maintainable at this stage.
Mayco Monsanto Biotech (India ) Ltd v.The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Mayco Monsanto Biotech filed a writ petition challenging an impugned G.O. issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh which fixed the reasonable trait value/royalty for cotton seeds for 2015-16. The court considered the arguments regarding potential prejudice to the petitioners if the order was suspended.
Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Bombay High Court set aside the provisional refusal orders issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks against Seiwa Kasei Co. Ltd.'s trademark application 'PHYTOCUTICLE'. The court found that the original orders were cryptic, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding the mark's distinctiveness. Furthermore, the court ruled that mere uploading of decisions on the website does not constitute proper communication under the Trademarks Rules, 2017, thus validating the timely filing of the petition. The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration by a new officer.
Professor Jayashankar v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681, granted to Monsanto Technology LLC, under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petition was heard by the Madras High Court on June 13, 2024. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite being served notice, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters in three parallel patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim involving European Patent EP 2 568 724 and related patents. The defendants, including multiple Xiaomi entities and other companies, requested an extension of deadlines for their reply submissions, rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation, and response to the patent amendment request until August 6, 2024. The order also addresses ongoing issues regarding the confidentiality regime, particularly the number of persons authorized to access confidential information on the defendants' side, following the plaintiff's filing of redacted replies and supplementary submissions concerning FRAND-related comparison licenses.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC and Wangs Alliance Corporation have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01027 concerning patent 11028854. The motion seeks to end the inter partes review.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting and Wangs Alliance settled their IPR dispute over a lighting patent before the trial was instituted. The Board dismissed the petition and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Corteva Agriscience seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that instituted inter‑partes review of its transgenic corn patent, arguing the Board misapplied enablement law and misread factual evidence of germplasm availability.
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Court decision.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's request for Director Review of the institution decision on Corteva's patent 8,901,378, leaving the institution in place.
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.