IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 87 of 218 · 6,517 total
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of a prior institution denial in IPR2024-00540, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,607,407 related to cleaning appliances. The challenger asserts that the patent is unpatentable under both §102 (anticipation) and §103 (obviousness).
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
FERVO ENERGY CO. challenges Ormat Technologies' patent (7320221) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over multiple combinations of geothermal and hydrocarbon prior art. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on references including Rinaldi, Mims, and Swenson.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's LDO voltage regulator patent (9471074), arguing that the claimed features are obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of references like Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, Ivanov, and Stanescu to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8,347,350), arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate predictable network access control features.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found that combinations of prior art references rendered multiple claims obvious or anticipated.
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for FERVO ENERGY CO.'s IPR challenge against Ormat Technologies, Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial was based on deficiencies in showing obviousness over prior art references like Rinaldi and Swenson.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's patent (9471074) in an IPR, arguing obviousness over Al-Shyoukh in view of Ivanov and Stanescu. The PTAB institution decision granted the petition, proceeding to trial on 18 claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cisco and Fortinet against InfoExpress, finding no reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,350 would be found obvious over prior art.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB found that the claims of the voltage regulator are unpatentable under § 103 based on a combination of Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of key terms, including finding 'gm enhanced' synonymous with 'gm boost.'
Suprajit Engineering Limited v.Shivam Pandey And Ors
Suprajit Engineering Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'SUPRAJIT', passing off, and violating its copyright related to automotive cables. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were deceptively using the mark and trade dress on their goods. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting an injunction and awarding token damages.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action brought by Hewlett-Packard Development Company against Lama France based on European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court ruled on Hewlett-Packard's request under Rule 191 RoP for an order compelling Lama France to disclose information about third parties involved in the production and distribution of the allegedly infringing products. The court found the request admissible and partially granted it in more limited terms than requested, ordering disclosure of certain invoices related to parallel importation from outside the EU, subject to confidentiality measures and without a penalty.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Monarch’s ’775 patent, asserting that claims 1 and 6 are obvious over prior‑art MPLS and pseudo‑wire literature, including Aggarwal’s patent and Hussain’s book.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s response to Juniper’s IPR argues that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,130,775 are not obvious, emphasizing that prior‑art references do not disclose a shared link between two pseudo‑wires.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch Networking’s sur‑reply defends the validity of its MPLS‑pseudowire patent against Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed shared‑link architecture.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the cited references do not teach a shared link between two pseudo‑wires and that the petition repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals has filed a PGR petition challenging all 30 claims of Exela Pharma Sciences' L‑cysteine parenteral nutrition patent, asserting lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and, alternatively, obviousness over the Sandoz label.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR petition, arguing that claims 1 and 6 are obvious based on prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining Wainner/Bocci or Kamite/Bocci renders the claimed network technology conventional and predictable.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR, arguing that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over combinations of Wainner, Bocci, and Kamite. The Board found the merits strong and ruled to institute the proceeding, noting prior art was not substantively analyzed by the Examiner.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. initiated an IPR challenging patent 8320566 owned by Entropic Communications LLC, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Cleveland/Hayashino and Scheim/Tzannes, to demonstrate non-patentability in the field of OFDMA/Scrambling.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals' PGR challenge against Exela Pharma Sciences was denied institution because the arguments regarding enablement, written description, and obviousness were largely identical to those previously presented during prosecution. The Board found that the Patent Owner successfully demonstrated how process controls overcome prior rejections, leading to a denial of the petition under § 325(d).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions LLC regarding packet switching claims (Claims 1 and 6). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references, including Wainner/Bocci and Kamite/Bocci.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 6 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references Wainner and Bocci. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's argument that combining these references rendered the claimed method obvious, particularly regarding shared link functionality in pseudo-wires.
Terex India Private Limited v.Cde Asia Ltd.
Terex India Private Limited appealed an order refusing its post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 307249, which was granted to CDE Asia Ltd. The appellant argued that the Deputy Controller's decision failed to provide independent reasoning or address key legal submissions regarding patentability and prior art. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Falcon Autotech Private Limited v.Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Integrated Pre-Sortation System' (Patent No. IN410846). The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to protect its statutory rights against the defendant, who was allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing sorter machines in India without proper licenses.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between M/S Rspl Health Private Limited and Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr. While procedural matters like exemption from certified copies were granted, the core petition seeking removal or rectification of the impugned trademark 'SAGAR SUPREME LABEL' was advanced. The court accepted notice and directed all parties to file their replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the alleged deceptive similarity.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC affirmed the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that extraordinary circumstances exist.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
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.