IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 87 of 159 · 4,764 total
Minka Lighting, LLC v.Wangs Alliance Corporation
Minka Lighting, LLC filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Wangs Alliance Corporation's patent covering smart fan control systems. The petitioner asserts that the claimed combination of RF and WiFi interfaces is obvious over various prior art references. This challenge targets claims related to wireless communication in home appliances.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture challenged Corteva Agriscience's patent covering TC1507 plant biotechnology, arguing the claims fail enablement under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) due to missing germplasm deposits. The petitioner also asserted anticipation and obviousness over prior art (Barbour) under both §102 and §103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
Inari Agriculture successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Corteva Agriscience's GMO patents based on prior art from Barbour. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding anticipation and obviousness over the cited publication, moving the case toward trial.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Corteva Agriscience LLC et al.
The PTAB Board upheld the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,378 B2 after finding that the TC1507 germplasm was publicly available prior to the application's filing date. The Board concluded that this availability satisfied priority requirements and prevented Barbour from qualifying as prior art under § 102.
Professor Jayashankar, Telangana State Agricultural University v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar, representing Telangana State Agricultural University, filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681 held by Monsanto Technology LLC. The petition aimed to challenge the validity of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to appear before the Madras High Court on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Pidilite Industries Limited v.Astral Limited (Formerly known as Resinova Chemie Limited)
Pidilite Industries Limited filed an interim application alleging that Astral Limited was infringing its registered design for the M-SEAL PV SEAL container. The plaintiff claimed originality in the shape and configuration of the container, which is used for solvent cement products. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and granted an ad interim injunction against the defendant's use of similar containers.
Ashish Anilkumar Desai (M/s. Sujanil Chemo Industries) v.M/S.Maas Herbals Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Ashish Anilkumar Desai against M/S. Maas Herbals Private Limited. The petition sought rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'LICYL' from the register, citing issues with Registration No.2089321. Crucially, the court noted that despite multiple opportunities and service of notice, the petitioner failed to appear for hearing. Consequently, the case was dismissed purely on grounds of non-prosecution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH v.Respondent
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH pursuant to Rule 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 12/06/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6, 65824
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order in preliminary measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 152 073. The defendants requested postponement of the scheduled oral hearing from 11 July 2024 to 12 July 2024 due to a conflicting hearing at the Düsseldorf Regional Court. After the claimant confirmed its availability for 12 July 2024, the court granted the request and rescheduled the hearing.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain's 11,854,612 patent covering mixed‑level NAND flash memory, finding the petitioner had not shown any claim to be unpatentable.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics' petition for post‑grant review of Vervain's NAND‑flash storage patent, finding no sufficient evidence of unpatentability under §§ 101, 103, and 112. No claim constructions were required, and the petition was dismissed without instituting a trial.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition to invalidate Vervain’s U.S. Patent No. 11,830,546 covering a hybrid SLC‑MLC NAND flash system. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,785,275. The Board terminated the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,785,275. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2025-00180, citing statutory authority and the lack of a merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the termination.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review to deny institution of Comcast’s IPR, arguing the petitioner’s repeated filing of parallel petitions violates USPTO guidance and burdens the PTAB. The request cites statutory discretionary‑denial authority to block the abusive filing pattern.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Entropic Communications requests Director review to block Comcast’s parallel IPR filings against its 11,785,275 patent, arguing the petitions violate statutory limits on abusive filing. The petition cites the USPTO’s 2019 guidance, which was prompted by Comcast’s own conduct.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast defends its three parallel IPR petitions against Entropic Communications, asserting they comply with PTAB guidance and are essential for addressing multiple invalidity grounds. The response urges the Director to reject the Patent Owner’s request for review.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Court decision.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast and Entropic Communications filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on patent 11,785,275. The parties cite 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) to protect sensitive business information.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Comcast has filed a petition to review Entropic’s ’275 patent, asserting that all twenty claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Zhang and its combinations. The petition argues that discretionary denial does not apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging SportsCastr’s 11,871,088 patent covering live‑sports video and data streaming, asserting obviousness over Ellis, Spivey, Herzog and Abulikemu. The petition argues the examiner never considered key prior art and that discretionary denial is improper.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices’ ’680 patent covering networked PAP therapy systems. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Kumar, Burton, and Kisner. The Board is asked to institute review.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of Vervain’s ‘240 NAND‑flash patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja patents and argues that pending district‑court suits do not bar institution.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of Cleveland Medical Devices' ’921 patent covering a networked PAP system. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Toge, Burton, Kumar, and Kisner. It seeks institution of the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Genius Sports Ltd. against SportsCastr Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness (103). The denial focused on insufficient rationale for combining prior art references, particularly regarding specific technical features like webserver functionality.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic Communications regarding a wideband receiver patent. The denial was based on the existence of another parallel petition covering the same claims.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-00180, allowing Comcast to challenge Entropic's wideband receiver patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on the petitioner's arguments against anticipation and obviousness.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for ResMed Corp.'s IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board overcame arguments regarding parallel District Court litigation by applying the Fintiv factors.
ResMed Corp. v.Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.
ResMed Corp. successfully petitioned for institution of its IPR against Cleveland Medical Devices, Inc.'s patent covering CPAP systems. The Board declined discretionary denial, finding that the petitioner adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on both 102 and 103 grounds.
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.