IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 99 of 218 · 6,517 total
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,219,551 held by SherryWear, LLC in a PTAB Petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed pocketed bra designs are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art references like Vidai and Handras.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 10,219,550 held by SherryWear, LLC, arguing that the claims related to bra pockets are obvious.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike challenges SherryWear’s patent (9,808,036) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the claimed pocket bra designs are obvious over existing prior art references. The petition asserts unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations of references like Barg, York, and Pintor. This challenge is part of ongoing litigation between the two companies.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's patented pocketed bra design (U.S. 9,723,878) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Vidai and Handras in view of Spagna. The Board found that Nike met its burden to show a reasonably strong case for unpatentability.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,295,288 held by SherryWear regarding intimate apparel design features. The petitioner argues that the claimed bra elements are obvious combinations of prior art references like Barg and York. This challenge tests the boundaries of routine design choices in the apparel industry.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike filed a PTAB petition challenging the validity of SherryWear's bra pocket system claims, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Barg and Pintor. The petitioner argues that these combinations render the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA).
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike has filed a Petition challenging SherryWear's U.S. Patent No. 9,289,016 in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the bra design claims are obvious.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV challenges BuzzBallz's '904 patent covering beverage containers, asserting claims 1-6 are obvious or anticipated by prior art like Kick and Ackermann/Kaminski combinations. The petition also raises issues regarding improper introduction of volume limitations during prosecution.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges a patent covering content identification and playback stream analysis, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that various combinations render the claimed methods predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging a patent covering Audio/Video Fingerprinting and Playback Stream Analysis. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB decided to institute IPR proceedings against a deodorant/antiperspirant patent, finding that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several key claims. The decision validates the use of multiple prior art references in personal care compositions for obviousness challenges.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC successfully challenged The Procter & Gamble Company's patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability for key deodorant compositions. The Board found that prior art references taught sufficient motivation to combine elements across different personal care fields.
At&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied the petition to invalidate claims related to small cell enhancements, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board rejected arguments based on anticipation and obviousness, particularly concerning technical limitations in resource scheduling.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge seven claims of SherryWear's patent based on obviousness over prior art references including Spagna and Rose. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claim 1, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully moved forward in its IPR against SherryWear's '800 patent, with the PTAB instituting the case on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to support a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for all six challenged claims.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully challenged SherryWear's pocketed bra patent (10219551) before the PTAB. The Board found grounds for institution, agreeing with Nike that various claims were obvious over prior art references like Handras and Spagna. This sets a strong precedent against the validity of apparel patents in this niche market.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully secured institution for all 14 claims of SherryWear's patent, overcoming the Patent Owner's attempt at discretionary denial. The Board found that Nike presented a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 over Barg and Pintor, leading to an IPR trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge key claims of SherryWear's intimate apparel patent (9723878) on grounds of obviousness. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable over combinations of prior art like Vidal/Spagna and Handras/Spagna.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC et al.
Nike successfully petitioned to challenge SherryWear's bra design patent (9808036) on grounds of obviousness over combinations of prior art references. The PTAB institution decision found that Nike had established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the asserted claims, leading to trial.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge SherryWear's apparel patent, leading the Board to institute proceedings on obviousness grounds. The decision focuses on whether combinations of prior art references teach or suggest the claimed design elements in intimate apparel.
Nike, Inc. v.SherryWear, LLC
Nike challenged SherryWear's claims regarding bra design and intimate apparel based on obviousness over prior art references like Vidal and Pintor. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Nike, specifically regarding independent claim 1 over the combination of Vidal/Pintor, leading to the case being instituted.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned to institute IPR against BuzzBallz, LLC regarding container design patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Kick. Trial is now pending for the challenged claims.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenging Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness assertions against multiple prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all 23 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,497,706 unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed aluminum-free deodorant compositions were anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
The PTAB found that the petitioner's challenges against claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-19 were successful. The Board determined that the challenged deodorant formulations were unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding all six claims of the '904 patent unpatentable. The Board determined that the claimed features were anticipated or obvious over prior art references (Kick, Ackermann, Kaminski, Hutchinson).
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This case concerns a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1, owned by Amgen, relating to monoclonal antibodies binding to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Munich Section) revoked the patent entirely for lack of inventive step under Article 138(1)(a) EPC in conjunction with Article 56 EPC, finding that neither the main request nor any auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen were valid. Amgen was ordered to bear Regeneron's legal costs in the amount of 1.375 million euro.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe v.Amgen, Inc.
The Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent EP 3 666 797 B1 entirely for lack of inventive step. The patent, owned by Amgen, related to antigen binding proteins (antibodies) to PCSK9 for treating hypercholesterolemia. The court found that neither the main request nor any of the auxiliary requests submitted by Amgen involved an inventive step over the prior art, and ordered Amgen to bear the Claimants' legal costs.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and jointly moved to terminate the related inter partes reviews, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317.
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.