Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9901–10000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Motwane Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Motwane Private Limited, holding that the petitioner's right to renew its trademarks was not extinguished despite a significant delay. The court emphasized that since the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, any automatic rejection based on time limits is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and due process must be followed by the Registry before removing marks from the register.
Salish Sham Viswan v.Singing Artists Association Kerala
The Kerala High Court ruled in favor of Salish Sham Viswan, who held a trademark registration for 'Singing Artists Association Kerala.' The court set aside an administrative rejection that claimed jurisdiction was lacking because the petitioner's entity was assumed to be registered under the Charitable Societies Act. The judgment clarified that the core issue is whether the name and logo are protected by the Trade Marks Act, allowing the Registrar to reconsider the complaint regarding potential infringement by the respondent.
Plant-e B.V., Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_239/2023) brought by Plant-e Knowledge B.V. and Plant-e B.V. against Arkyne Technologies S.L. (Bioo) regarding European Patent No. EP2137782. The defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation, raising the question under Article 33(3) UPCA of whether to bifurcate or jointly hear the infringement and revocation proceedings. Both parties jointly requested a joint hearing, and the panel decided to proceed with both matters jointly for reasons of procedural expediency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against a cost order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings initiated by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 763 331 relating to a crimping device for stent-based valve prostheses. After Meril submitted a cease-and-desist declaration that Edwards accepted, the first-instance court found the interim measures moot, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Meril to bear the costs up to €200,000. Meril appealed seeking to shift the costs to Edwards and requested suspensive effect of the appeal.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in IPR2024-00452, asserting the Board misapplied KSR precedent and case law on motivation and bodily incorporation. The petition references Intel decisions and a related institution ruling on another patent.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Comcast's request for Director review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00445, keeping the earlier decision that the patent was not instituted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Entropic’s cable‑modem patent. The petition asserts the Board erred by analyzing each prior‑art reference in isolation instead of as the combinations with Thibeault. The request seeks reversal and institution of the IPR.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast’s rehearing request was partially granted: the PTAB corrected a misstatement in claim 4 but upheld the unpatentability of all 24 challenged claims of Entropic’s broadband OFDMA probe patent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's portable jump starter patent. The PTAB found all claims unpatentable, and the patent owner’s request for Director Review is contested by the petitioner, who argues the Board’s decision is well‑supported and consistent with precedent.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB denied ADC Solutions Auto LLC's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00577 (and similarly in IPR2024-00671), leaving the original decisions in place.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The Noco Company seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its USB‑charging jump‑starter patent claims unpatentable. It argues the Board misapplied obviousness analysis by ignoring the core dispute over charging feasibility. The petition targets the Board’s alleged abuse of discretion.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that 22 of the 23 claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding the claims anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references, while claim 11 survived.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
An email from the PTAB Director authorizes ADC Solutions Auto to submit a limited 15‑page response to Director Review requests in IPR2024-00577 and IPR2024-00671, with no new evidence permitted.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB Director has received a review request from the patent owner in IPR2024-00446. Comcast may file a 15‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications challenged Entropic's '826 Patent in an IPR based on obviousness (103). The petitioner presented multiple grounds combining prior art references like Renken, Maycock, Kidambi, and Zhang. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's jump starter patent (US 11,447,023) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that the USB charging features are predictable combinations of known DC-DC boosting and jump starter technology.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC challenges The Noco Company's patent covering jump start apparatus technology, asserting that key claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed USB charging features are obvious when combining prior art references like Richardson with Zhao or Yu with Paparrizos.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense's patent 8646042, asserting that the claims are obvious over various prior art references including Giobbi and Broadcom. The petitioner argues that combining disclosures of PDKs and RDCs makes the claimed hybrid device predictable for proximity-based access control.
Dell Inc. et al. v.--
Dell Inc. et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR2024-00564, challenging SOFTEX's '649 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103). The Board found that the Becton factors strongly favored institution, despite some Fintiv factors weighing against denial.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner 3Shape A/S et al. filed a petition challenging the validity of Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent claims, asserting that all 20 claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The arguments rely heavily on combining prior art references such as Zhang and Babayoff to demonstrate predictable improvements in dental imaging technology.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
Petitioner asserts that the challenged dental imaging claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Sommer, Rubbert, Malfliet, and Estépar. The petition details how specific elements related to bite registration methods merely aggregate known technologies from these sources.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of patent 10135682, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on numerous combinations of prior art references, including Thibeault, Saey, Gross, and Cioffi, to demonstrate the lack of novelty in cable network service group management technology.
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding cable modem architecture claims 18 and 19 was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standard for institution, specifically failing to demonstrate obviousness over various prior art combinations.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
ADC Solutions Auto LLC successfully petitioned for institution against The Noco Company's patent covering portable jump starter apparatuses. The Board found that the prior art presented in the petition was not substantially the same as what was before the Office during prosecution, satisfying the Advanced Bionics framework. This allows the case to proceed to substantive review on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Cox Communications, Inc. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Cox Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications regarding network monitoring technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness over various prior art references.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation's patent covering intra-oral scanning and 3D modeling. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over combinations of Zhang and Babayoff.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Entropic Communications, LLC regarding claims in patent 8223775. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over various prior art combinations, including Rabenko and Kim, particularly concerning modular hardware upgrades.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast Cable Communications' IPR challenge against Entropic Communications' patent covering BCN modulation/bit-loading. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting the combination of prior art references as obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Comcast's IPR against Entropic, finding insufficient evidence that prior art references (Saey and Gross) disclosed or suggested the claimed composite SNR-related metric. This decision reinforces the burden on petitioners to demonstrate specific support for key limitations in complex technical claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully argued that multiple claims in the patent were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to an institution decision by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the assertions of obviousness across various combinations of prior art references.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against the '690 patent, arguing that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious claims related to channel assessment probes. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for certain claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, leading to the scheduling of trial.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi ’1573, Giobbi ’1394, and Dua. The Board successfully rejected arguments regarding means-plus-function interpretation, finding key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' conveyed sufficient definite structure. This decision represents a significant win for the Petitioner in this IPR proceeding.
ADC Solutions Auto LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found all seven challenged claims of the portable jump starter apparatus unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board successfully applied two distinct combinations of prior art references (Richardson/Zhao and Yu/Paparrizos) to reject the claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that the prior art references, particularly Rabenko and Gaspar, rendered the claimed cable modem architecture obvious.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically rejecting grounds based on Renken's architecture and Aggarwal's limitations. The Board concluded that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos for multi-channel functionality.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found that several claims of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Key findings included that Claim 1 was anticipated by IEEE-802.16, and specific combinations of prior art rendered other claims obvious.
Amayse As v.Joydeb Mukherjee & Anr
Amayse A/S alleges that Joydeb Mukherjee is infringing its patent related to advertisement elements during a cricket match. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's products are infringing upon their patented technology.
Avita International Ltd And Anr v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed by Avita International Ltd challenging the rejection of its PCT application (PCT/1B2017/051404) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court granted exemptions for filing documents but directed that notice be issued to the respondent, listing the matter for further hearing.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited filed an appeal challenging the order that rejected its post-grant opposition against a patent granted to Philip Morris Products S.A. The court issued notices and set the matter for further hearing.
A.K. Al Muhaidib And Sons v.Chaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Narinder Kumar M/S Kundan Trading Company v.Surinder Pal M/S Kundal Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the 'KRANTI' trademark, which was registered in favor of the respondent. The case faced significant procedural hurdles due to the death of the original respondent and subsequent difficulties in locating legal representatives. Given the complex status of the parties, the court issued notices to the former counsel and the trademark agent to determine if any family members claim rights to the impugned mark.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue Patent
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla successfully navigated the PTAB's discretionary denial hurdles, leading to the institution of its IPR challenge against Graphite Charging Company LLC. The Board found that Tesla demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Wang and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-13) under reference UPC-001610, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd
Nokia Technologies OY filed a patent infringement suit against Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd and others, claiming infringement of their patent related to mobile telecommunications. The case involved multiple hearings and ultimately led to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
Made Easy Education Private Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001612, ICPillar LLC appeared in dispute with ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott France, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, including multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The dispute centered on the alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence (SoD) across all defendants, given that service on some defendants was delayed or still in progress. Following a case management meeting where all parties orally agreed on a reasonable extension date, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered that the time limit for filing the SoD be aligned for all defendants, with the starting point set at 15 December 2023 and the SoD expected by 15 March 2024.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Malla Rajiv
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. against Malla Rajiv for infringing on their trademarks and copyrights related to packaged drinking water. The court found that the defendant's use of 'JK COPPER+ WATER' was an unauthorized imitation, causing consumer confusion and diluting the plaintiffs' goodwill associated with brands like 'TATA COPPER+ WATER'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction, damages amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs, and recovery of actual legal costs.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc./Netgear Deutschland GmbH/Netgear International Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321. The central procedural issue was whether to change the procedural language from German to English, given that both patents were granted in English and two members of the panel were not native German speakers. While the defendants consented to a full language change and the plaintiff opposed it but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English, the presiding judge ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English while keeping the procedural language as German.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 9 February 2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 16/11/2023 Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Man Truck Bus Se v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
The appellant, a commercial vehicle manufacturer, appealed the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application. The appeal argued that the Controller ignored foreign patents filed by the appellant and violated natural justice by relying on prior art (D5) during the hearing which was never included in the initial notice.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
Havells India Limited v.B R Engineering Works & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.
Usha International Limited v.Rex Global Limited & Anr
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BUTTERFLY', the Delhi High Court allowed Usha International Limited (Plaintiff) to introduce crucial additional evidence. This decision was made in response to Rex Global Limited's (Defendant) allegations that the Plaintiff lacked proprietary rights and concealed material facts, specifically referencing an earlier adoption of the mark by a Chinese entity. The court recognized the necessity of these documents—ranging from Trade Marks Office reports to records from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce—for a comprehensive adjudication of ownership claims.
Oikos S.P.A. v.Oikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.
In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-02-08) under reference UPC-001620, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.