IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 98 of 218 · 6,517 total
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
Arashi Vision successfully convinced the PTAB that GoPro's video stabilization patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have combined prior art teachings from Zhou and Kwatra to achieve better stabilization techniques. This decision establishes a significant challenge to the validity of key features in modern video processing patents.
M&A Ventures, LLC et al. v.Autoscribe Corporation
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by M&A Ventures against Autoscribe Corporation's payment processing patent. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability assertions, particularly regarding claim construction and prior art limitations.
Arashi Vision Inc. (d/b/a Insta360) v.GoPro, Inc.
The PTAB rejected the Petitioner's obviousness challenge against GoPro's video stabilization patent. The Board found that the prior art reference Kwatra did not teach or suggest minimizing rotational velocity and acceleration as argued by the Petitioner.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.Olvo Lubes International & Ors.
In a significant resolution for Volvo, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit after both parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The defendants formally acknowledged Volvo's exclusive statutory rights and well-known status of the 'VOLVO' trademark in India. As part of the agreement, the defendants committed to paying ₹1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs, effectively concluding the long-running dispute over trademark infringement and passing off.
M/S Kwality Food Products v.Anil Singla @ Anil Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Kwality Food Products against Anil Singla and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the plaintiff has been continuously using the 'Ruchi' marks for spices since 1992, establishing common law rights. Given the identical nature of the goods and deceptive similarity of the packaging, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark to prevent consumer confusion.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch argues that the PTAB correctly rejected P&G’s attempts to reinterpret claim language and that the challenged deodorant stick claims are obvious over prior art. The petition also rebuts P&G’s RPI argument, maintaining that Dr. Squatch was the sole real party in interest.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenges P&G’s request to overturn the PTAB’s findings that claim 8 of the ’706 deodorant‑stick patent is obvious. The petitioner argues the Board correctly applied the ASTM D‑1321 standard and rejected P&G’s RPI arguments.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear entered a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the pending IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,869,510.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,869,510 and filed a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR, citing 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,551 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear settled their IPR dispute over patent 9,808,036 B1. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceedings, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate a series of inter partes reviews, including the one covering patent 10,219,551. The termination was entered under 35 U.S.C. §317 after the trials had already been instituted.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,550 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,808,036 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without deciding the merits.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering patent 9,289,016. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,295,288 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
P&G filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn an IPR finding that its aluminum‑free deodorant patent was obvious. The company argues the Board misinterpreted claim 8’s hardness test and failed to show a proper motivation to combine disparate prior art. It also raises a real‑party‑in‑interest defect.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a PTAB decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company challenges the Board’s claim construction, motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner’s failure to disclose real parties in interest.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear jointly moved to terminate multiple IPRs after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear reached a confidential settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPRs covering SherryWear’s footwear patent (U.S. 10,219,550). The Board cited statutory authority to end the review before any merits were decided.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled all disputes over patent 9,723,878 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and keep the settlement confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,295,288. The Board terminated the IPR by joint motion, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,289,016 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317 to end the proceeding before a final decision is issued.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch challenged The Procter & Gamble Company’s '706 Patent, arguing that its claims regarding natural deodorants are unpatentable. The petitioner relies on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness (35 U.S.C. §§ 102/103). These challenges focus on the use of basic concepts and ingredient combinations found in existing prior art.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC has filed a petition challenging The Procter & Gamble Company's deodorant patent (10905647) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed stick compositions merely recite known ingredients and consumer preferences within the cosmetics industry.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major telecommunications companies, including AT&T, T-Mobile, Ericsson, and Nokia, have filed a petition challenging the validity of a cellular network patent (9560559). The challengers argue that the patented claims are anticipated or obvious based on combinations of prior art references like Centonza and industry standards.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges SherryWear's sports bra patent (10869510) based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. The petitioner argues that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would find it obvious to modify existing designs using common knowledge regarding materials and pocket function.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike, Inc. initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,244,800 held by SherryWear, LLC. The core challenge is obviousness over multiple prior art references including Spagna, Rose, and Glass. This petition also raises issues regarding the priority date entitlement of the challenged claims.
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.