IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 97 of 159 · 4,764 total
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate Hangzhou ZH Tech’s ’855 patent covering a walkie‑talkie mount for earmuffs, asserting obviousness, indefiniteness, and lack of enablement/written description across all 19 claims.
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements challenges Duesenfeld GmbH's battery recycling patent (11050097) by asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references, such as Hanisch with Meador and Shin, renders the claimed features predictable for a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,991,234 held by DISH Technologies L.L.C., asserting that the claims covering adaptive bitrate streaming are obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combinations of references like Ogdon and Allen, supplemented by Klements and Gamble, teach every limitation of the challenged claims.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully instituted an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent (10080472) covering vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims based on obviousness (§ 103).
Ascend Elements, Inc. v.Duesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial in its IPR against Duesenfeld GmbH regarding battery recycling technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The Director vacated the Final Written Decision and dismissed the IPR petition filed by Aylo Freesites Ltd against DISH Technologies L.L.C., finding that the petition was time-barred after correcting its list of Real Parties in Interest.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against DISH Technologies L.L.C., arguing that key adaptive streaming claims are obvious over prior art, specifically WO 02/49343 A1. The Board found a material error in the Office's review of the evidence, allowing the IPR to proceed to trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
MediaTek Inc.'s IPR petition against ParkerVision, Inc. was instituted by the PTAB, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The petitioner successfully argued that combining Nevo and Avitabile renders claims 1-20 unpatentable in wireless communication systems.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing successfully convinced the PTAB that all 19 claims of patent 11736855 were unpatentable. The Board found the claims invalid under both obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and various indefiniteness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 112(b)).
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1-11 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Leaning, Klemets, Gamble) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board adopted a limiting construction for 'to achieve continuous presentation,' requiring uninterrupted playback across quality shifts.
Honeywell International Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Honeywell International Inc appealed a decision by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for 'Organic Fluorescent Compositions.' The core dispute centered on the validity of amendments made to the original claims, specifically changing the scope from a 'composition' to just the 'compound.' Honeywell argued that these amendments merely narrowed the scope and were fully supported by the original specification. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the application for fresh examination.
Vijay Abrol v.Yogesh Kumar Rustogi
The Delhi High Court allowed appeals filed by Vijay Abrol, setting aside a previous judgment that had favored Yogesh Kumar Rustogi in a passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary goodwill and reputation for the trademark 'BRITE' as required by the triple test for passing off. Furthermore, the appellant/defendant successfully demonstrated their own established use of the mark and secured its registration, leading the court to conclude the original suit lacked a real basis.
Casablanca Apparels Pvt Ltd v.Polo Lauren Company Lp & Anr. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Casablanca Apparels against Polo Lauren's trademark 'POLO'. The court held that since an application challenging the mark's validity (under Section 124) was already pending before the Trial Court, the current rectification petition was not maintainable at this stage. This ruling emphasizes the procedural hierarchy between concurrent proceedings in civil suits and intellectual property rectification actions.
Tirupati Structurals Limited v.Jai Prakash Singhal
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tirupati Structurals Limited against Jai Prakash Singhal, finding that the defendant's use of 'MM TIRUPATI' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court held that despite minor differences in prefixes, the identical and prominent shared element 'TIRUPATI', coupled with the similarity in goods (pipes and fittings), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded by common law passing off principles against calculated attempts to capitalize on established goodwill.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board is asked to end the review as no merits decision has been rendered.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Sony Corporation have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in the district‑court lawsuit over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties seek a 45‑day stay to finalize the agreement and will file a stipulation of dismissal.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,873,685. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the PTAB granted the termination while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation filed an IPR challenging the validity of Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC's '339 patent related to automated correction of imaging distortions. The petitioner argues that multiple combinations of prior art references render the claimed invention obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found the petition demonstrated a strong showing on the merits, leading to institution.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully moved forward with its IPR challenge against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, as the PTAB declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation. The Board found sufficient merit in the petition, focusing on whether prior art (Watanabe) renders key digital imaging claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Sony Corporation v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Croda Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Croda Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated November 6, 2020, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original patent application (No. 1432/DELNP/2013) concerning Agrochemical Adjuvants and Formulations was refused.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd v.Hub.Nrw-Euindia Invest Gmbh & Ors
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd (AMUL), granting a decree against multiple defendants for trademark infringement related to the 'AMUL TRU seltzer' brand. The court issued sweeping orders requiring domain registrars and the Department of Telecommunications to block access to various infringing websites globally. Furthermore, it restrained certain parties from exporting AMUL products that were not intended for the EU market, reinforcing robust protection against digital counterfeiting and unauthorized trade.
Grip Invest Technologies Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Grip Invest Technologies, restraining a newly discovered mirroring website (eliteedgebrokerage.info) from operating. The court found that the new site was an exact copy of the plaintiff's website, infringing both copyright and trademark. Furthermore, the court directed the Domain Name Registrar and the Department of Telecommunication to take immediate steps to block access to the infringing domain, reinforcing proactive measures against online IP infringement.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ridley Life Science Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's attempt to reopen evidence regarding costs and damages in a trademark infringement suit. The court noted the defendant's history of 'abysmal conduct,' including being a 'habitual offender/rank infringer' who repeatedly infringes third-party products. Given that the defendant had ample opportunity to present their case previously, the court found the late application was not bona fide and aimed only at delay.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of claim 10 of Micron’s challenged 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s IPR against Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent was instituted, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that left its 3D NAND flash patent claims unchallenged. The petition argues the Board misapplied obviousness standards and ignored reply evidence. A reversal could affect the enforceability of claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent 10,937,806.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in two IPRs concerning patent 10,937,806. The denial leaves the patent owner’s rights intact.
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.