IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 96 of 218 · 6,517 total
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR for 9912914, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on all challenged obviousness grounds (103). The petitioner argued that combinations of prior art references—including Yerazunis, Fiore, Ely, and Lewellen—would render claims 1-23 obvious to a POSITA.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola vs. Stellar IPR, ultimately denying institution based on Fintiv factors favoring denial due to substantial parallel proceeding investment.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated the institution decision in a Motorola Solutions vs. Stellar, LLC IPR, ultimately denying institution because substantial investment had already occurred in the parallel district court proceeding.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR trial on all grounds for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC, finding persuasive arguments that claims are unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Board found specific teachings in Yerazunis and Fiore supported the obviousness of key claims regarding surveillance data recording.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director denied institution of IPRs in four related proceedings involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, citing the substantial investment already made in a parallel district court infringement trial.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH challenged Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP's '729 patent, asserting obviousness of claims related to orally disintegrating corticosteroids for GI tract inflammation. The PTAB declined to deny the petition, finding that additional evidence warranted reconsideration of prior art references like Dohil and FDA Guidance.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Mr. Vishal Chhatwani
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit against Mr. Vishal Chhatwani alleging infringement across multiple IP domains, including trademark, design, and copyright, related to industrial oils and lubricants. The parties successfully entered into mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement dated July 9, 2024. The court subsequently decreed the suit in favor of Hero Motocorp Limited based on the terms of this settlement, which included an acknowledgment of IP ownership and payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- by the defendants.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision dismissing an opposition against a similar mark (ZORA). The appellant argued that the use of ZORA by a bag manufacturer would exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-known trademark, ZARA, particularly in relation to textiles. While the court granted procedural relief regarding delay condonation and exemption from filing copies, it issued notice to the opposing party (Respondent No. 2) to file a reply, indicating that the substantive dispute over trademark infringement and passing off is yet to be decided.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Jagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The patent proprietor submitted multiple requests to amend the patent during the proceedings, ultimately proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimant and counterclaimants jointly and 40% by the defendant.
Nelissen v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants (OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV) sought review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order that had permitted the claimant (Mr. Nelissen) to supplement his Reply with new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and a modified petitum. The panel conducted a marginal review and confirmed the Judge-Rapporteur's decision in all respects, while granting the defendants leave to appeal.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl and counterclaims for revocation filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. The claimants and counterclaimants challenged the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of enabling disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by the defendant during the proceedings, and ordered costs to be borne 60% by the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% by the defendant.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Meril Italy Srl filed a revocation action against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valves with sealing mechanisms. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in related infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division, which were transferred to the Central Division Paris. The Court rejected the revocation action and counterclaims, maintaining the patent as amended by auxiliary request II submitted by Edwards, with costs split 60% against the claimants/counterclaimants and 40% against the defendant.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Masaba seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that upheld an obviousness finding on its aggregate transferring system patent. The patent owner contends the Board ignored critical real‑world evidence and mis‑qualified the petitioner’s expert.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute, prompting the PTAB to dismiss IPR2024-01160 before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to dismiss and ordered the settlement kept confidential.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,743, prompting a joint motion to dismiss the pending IPR before it was instituted.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Solaris defends the PTAB's finding that Masaba’s conveyor patent is obvious, emphasizing lack of nexus and proper expert testimony. The response rebuts Masaba’s secondary‑considerations arguments and procedural objections.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Watson Guide IP’s dental guide patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent on back-contact solar cell technology. The petitioner argues that key claims are unpatentable due to obviousness when combining the patented structure with various prior art references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Petitioner Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 covering remote wakeup systems in a PTAB petition. The challenge asserts that the patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Zhang, Zill, Liu).
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. has filed an IPR Petition challenging patents held by THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY regarding Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connectivity for video streaming. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Lorex Manual and Kim941.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. challenged Infogation Corp.'s patent 6292743, arguing that the claimed use of non-proprietary, natural language formats for routes was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies on various prior art references, including McGrath and Knockeart, to demonstrate that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to make simple modifications.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent related to Radio Link Control (RLC) protocols. Petitioners argue that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by existing 3GPP communication standards. The core dispute centers on whether prior art correctly detects protocol errors in wireless transmissions.
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.