IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 94 of 218 · 6,517 total
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh v.Pawan Sharma
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was using identical/similar trademarks ('BOSS HUGO BOSS', 'BOSS', etc.) in relation to clothing and garments, causing confusion. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Vishal Choudhary v.Snpc Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling brick making machines due to alleged patent and copyright infringement. The High Court reviewed the matter, including a local commissioner's report confirming the availability of eight such machines.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v.Smt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.
M/s.Chaitanya Food Product v.M/s.Honey Food Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (TM) No.277 of 2023 after the petitioner, M/s.Chaitanya Food Product, sought permission to withdraw the case. The dispute concerning the registered service mark No.3091641 was reported as settled between the parties. This outcome highlights how parties can resolve trademark disputes outside of a full judicial ruling.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European patent EP3404726. The intervening party Photon Wave sought suspension of the infringement proceedings pending a revocation action it had filed before the Central Division of Paris, and also requested allocation of a technically qualified judge. The Court rejected the suspension request, finding that the infringement proceedings were more advanced and that the Central Division was unlikely to retain jurisdiction, but granted the request for a technical judge.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence reached a settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 7,395,078. The Board found good cause to end the proceeding and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung challenged Cerence's patent 7,395,078 regarding voice messaging over SMS channels by asserting obviousness (103). Petitioners presented multiple grounds combining prior art references (Dolan, Freedman, Halonen) to demonstrate the claimed methods were taught or suggested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Piyush Goel
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Piyush Goel alleging infringement of its trademarks, including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design', as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was clandestinely stocking and selling inferior quality jeans using deceptively similar marks. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection of certain documents filed by Oerlikon in an infringement action regarding EP2145848. The court addressed the treatment of two documents: Document 37 (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese operator) was withdrawn from evidence entirely, while Document 38 (commercial data) was granted confidential status with restricted access to a defined 'club' of individuals.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, and Osaka University
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information filed by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG in an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited regarding patent EP2145848. Oerlikon sought confidentiality protection for two documents (a Settlement Agreement with a Chinese third party and commercial data), requesting access be restricted to Himson's lawyers only. The Court excluded Document 37 from the evidentiary record entirely after Oerlikon withdrew it, and granted restricted 'club' access to Document 38 for Himson's lawyer, one technical consultant, and one natural person representing Himson.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Milan) that had revoked measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises granted in favor of Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against AWM Srl and SCHNELL S.p.A. The Court of Appeal held that applications for preservation of evidence under Article 60 UPCA imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but that the other party must be heard on confidentiality before disclosure. The case was referred back to the Court of First Instance to properly consider Progress's requests for disclosure and to address confidentiality issues.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate US Conec's 11,808,994 patent covering small form‑factor fiber‑optic connectors, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, anticipation and obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
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.