IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 93 of 159 · 4,764 total
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, represented by Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and its Indian subsidiary, sought an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited for allegedly infringing their Indian Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and balance of convenience, leading to the grant of temporary relief.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 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 30/05/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Samsung Electronics GmbH Am Kronberger Hang 6,
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00990, finding Halliburton’s claims 11,12 and 14‑20 unpatentable and also striking substitute claims 29‑37, while upholding claims 1‑10 and 21‑23. Halliburton has appealed the decision to the Federal Circuit.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford files an authorized response urging the PTAB to deny Halliburton’s Director Review Request, asserting the Board’s findings on claims 14, 29‑31, and 33 are well‑founded and that the patent owner’s arguments misinterpret the claim language and prior art.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Halliburton seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found several gravel‑packing screen claims unpatentable, arguing the Board misread claim language, offered no motivation for its combination, and abused its discretion.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco seeks Director Review of a PTAB denial that found its VPLS failover claims un‑obvious over the Mitchell reference. The petition alleges the Board improperly added claim limitations, applied the wrong obviousness standard, and ignored the modified prior‑art embodiment.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Weatherford's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00990 concerning Halliburton's oilfield patent 11,333,007 B2.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Iarnach Technologies seeks denial of an IPR filed by Nokia and AT&T over U.S. Patent 9,806,892 covering direct power‑state transitions in passive optical networks. The owner argues the cited references do not disclose such transitions and invokes Fintiv discretionary denial factors due to parallel district‑court cases.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. has initiated an IPR challenge against Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.'s patent covering gravel packing systems for oil and gas applications. The petitioner asserts that the claimed technology is obvious over prior art developed by ExxonMobil/Mobil research groups dating back to the 1990s. This action targets multiple claims related to differential pressure shunt tubes and screen geometry.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the '882 Patent owned by Resonant Systems, Inc., asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge focuses on combining various prior art references—including Alexander and Cosper—to demonstrate that the patented vibration control technology is predictable.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's patent (11222448) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, related to real-time measurement guides in CAD software, are predictable combinations of existing technologies like Grinspun and Graphicxtras.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,733,773 owned by CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious based on combinations of existing CAD software and prior art publications. This challenge focuses on whether combining known techniques with EZBRUSH software yields predictable improvements in garment patterning.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. challenged CLO Virtual Fashion's patent on digital design methods, arguing the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references related to CAD systems renders the claimed apparatus and method predictable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of Portsmouth Network Corporation's '637 Patent claims related to fast link failover systems for network communication failures. The petitioner asserts that the invention is obvious over various combinations of prior art references, primarily Mitchell.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia filed a petition challenging claims in the '892 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on combining prior art standards (ITU-T) and publications to demonstrate that claimed power management features are predictable.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Petitioners challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,806,892 in a PTAB petition, arguing that several claims related to power management in optical networks are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely on combining industry standards (G.987.3, G.988) with technical disclosures from prior art references like Röger and Ghazisaidi.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
Weatherford U.S., L.P. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Halliburton Energy Services' patent (11333007) regarding wellbore gravel packing technology. The Board granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (§ 103).
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
Zhejiang Lingdi Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.CLO Virtual Fashion, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenging CLO Virtual Fashion's digital clothing patent (10,733,773) after finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on impermissible hindsight and unsupported expert testimony.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB denied institution for Cisco Systems' IPR against Portsmouth Network Corporation regarding network failover methods. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the prior art, specifically Mitchell.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems' attempt to overturn the denial of IPR institution against Portsmouth Network Corporation was rejected by the Delegated Review Panel. The DRP upheld the Board's implicit claim construction, finding that the claims covered all network nodes, not just downstream ones.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia of America Corporation et al.'s IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies Limited was denied by the PTAB, preventing trial on claims 1-11. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (G.984.3 and Khermosh) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed method for managing upstream burst overhead parameters in PON systems.
WEATHERFORD U.S., L.P. et al. v.Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). Specifically, claims 11, 12, and 14–20 were found obvious over combinations of prior art references. The Board also denied the Patent Owner's motion to amend regarding substitute claims 29-37, rejecting some for lack of enablement/utility.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically regarding vibration-generating devices. The Board concluded that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine prior art references like Alexander and Cosper to achieve the claimed results.
Nokia of America Corporation et al. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations of prior art standards (G.987.3, G.988) and publications (Röger). The Board specifically determined that Claim 1 was obvious because the combination suggested direct transitions between low-power states for increased energy efficiency.
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd v.Gm Sales
Marc Salon And Beauty Equipments Pvt Ltd filed a suit alleging that Gm Sales was engaging in passing off, unfair competition, and copyright infringement by slavishly copying its salon furniture designs and using its product images. The plaintiff claimed market dominance and distinctiveness in their products. The court reviewed the application to vacate the interim injunction granted earlier.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited for infringing Indian Patent No. 268846. The patent covers pharmaceutical products like Empagliflozin and related formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, leading to the grant of an injunction.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an exemption from advance service based on the apprehension that Defendants might flood the market with infringing products before formal service could occur.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited alleging impending infringement of its patent (IN2698411) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The parties reached an agreement where the defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of on these consent terms.
M/S Nakoda Food Marketing & Ors. v.M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the respondent seeking interim relief in a trademark dispute. The court noted that while the respondent's mark is registered and well-known, the appellants' mark was unregistered and had previously been withdrawn from registration. Consequently, the court declined to grant any ad interim order at this stage but directed the appellants to file detailed documentation regarding their prior use and application history for future consideration.
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.