Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 10001–10100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation have reached a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,830,821, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek termination for judicial economy.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks’ request for Director Review of the PTAB’s earlier denial was rejected. The Patent Owner contended that the cited prior art fails to teach the patent’s core limitation of concurrent network‑path failure.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo’s request for director review of the PTAB’s decision on its IPR challenging patent 7,623,439 was denied. The Board found the petitioner introduced new arguments and evidence not previously presented and failed to show good cause for submitting additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against Collision Communications’ wireless signaling patent. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied prior art references and erred in finding a lack of particularity. Samsung seeks reversal of the denial.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01239 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over patent 10,652,111. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
Court decision.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
Lenovo petitions the PTAB Director to overturn a denied institution decision, arguing that the Board misapplied the Hulu "reasonable likelihood" standard and failed to recognize the Dammann paper as prior art. The request seeks institution of an IPR against Intellectual Ventures' OFDM patent.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against Collision Communications' patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the institution denial.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo notified the PTAB that, following a settlement with Intellectual Ventures II, it will not submit a response to the patent owner's Director Review request, effectively ending the IPR proceeding.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision on its remote‑management patent, asserting the Board mis‑handled the Neufeld reference and failed to provide reasoned analysis. The Patent Owner requests Director Review to vacate the decision.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDUP Manufacturing Group Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252) covering LED bypass circuits and series lighting technology. The petitioner asserts that claims 1-14 are unpatentable based on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness using various prior art references. This proceeding centers on whether the claimed circuit details were already known in the field.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks challenges Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed Deep Packet Inspection functionality within a Software Defined Networking controller is obvious.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed an IPR petition challenging Orckit Corporation's patent (8,830,821) on grounds of obviousness (§103). The challenge centers on the combination of Doshi’s MPLS path selection with reoptimization techniques from prior art like Guichard and Huang.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,545,740 held by Orckit Corporation, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed bi-directional link aggregation and hash-based selection mechanisms were already known in prior art references like Bruckman, Basso, and Holdsworth. This challenge targets core networking technology used for load balancing.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Intellectual Ventures II's patent claims related to DDR SDRAM timing calibration and memory controllers. The petitioner argues that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references Johnson, Jeddeloh, and Keeth. This challenges the validity of a key patent in the semiconductor technology space.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient grounds for LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD.'s challenge against Seasonal Specialties, LLC's patent (US 11096252). The Board established reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references. This moves the case toward a full trial at PTAB.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Samsung against Collision Communications' patent covering Multiuser Detection (MUD) technology. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the prior art adequately taught the claimed unique signal parameters, leading to a lack of particularity in the arguments.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. failed to overcome obviousness challenges in an IPR before the PTAB, resulting in the denial of its petition. The Board found that Petitioner did not present a compelling or meritorious challenge despite analyzing multiple grounds against various prior art references.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Orckit Corporation's patent (10652111). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Arista could prove obviousness based on prior art related to Software Defined Networking and Deep Packet Inspection.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks lost its IPR challenge against Orckit Corporation's '821 Patent, with the PTAB finding no reasonable likelihood that claims 14, 15, and 16 were unpatentable. The Board rejected Petitioner's arguments that prior art combined references taught or suggested the claimed network protection methods.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
The DRP granted Director Review and vacated the Board's denial of institution for Arista Networks against Orckit Corporation. The decision corrected the claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood that Ashwood Smith teaches key limitations.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
Lenovo successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent owned by University of Rochester/Intellectual Ventures regarding Multiple Clock Domain Architectures (MCD). The Board found sufficient evidence that various combinations of prior art render multiple claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
Lenovo challenged Intellectual Ventures II's patent (7325140) in an IPR, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to remote device management. The Board found that Lenovo showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on several grounds, particularly citing Neufeld and IPMI as teaching key limitations. This institution decision moves the case toward trial, focusing on complex technical combinations of access control protocols.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability for the majority of claims (1, 2, 4–7, 9–15) based on anticipation and obviousness over various combinations of prior art. However, the Board rejected arguments regarding Claims 3 and 8, finding insufficient articulation in the Petition to support those findings.
LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al.
The PTAB found that claims 1 and 3-7 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references (Shenai, Georgiou, etc.), while claims 8-12 survived. The key finding was that the claim language did not require global-asynchrony, supporting the Petitioner’s interpretation.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures II
The Board found that claims 1–3, 6–9, 12, and 14–17 are unpatentable over Neufeld grounds. Specifically, the Board determined that prior art reference Neufeld taught multiple limitations of the claimed apparatus, including distinct bus controllers and encrypted communication handling. The combination of IPMI/Huckins was rejected as lacking motivation to combine or relying on hindsight.
Castrol Limited v.Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy, Trading As Sri Karthikeya Traders
Castrol Limited filed a suit against Rajasekhar Reddy Byreddy for trademark infringement concerning engine oils and lubricants. The court examined the deceptive similarities between Castrol's trademarks, including 'CASTROL' and its associated devices, and the defendant's products, which used similar packaging and marks like 'CRYSTAL'. Despite the defendant making minor changes to their marks during the pendency of the suit, the court found these alterations did not negate the infringement.
Ramanlal Kishandas Kothari v.Aska Equipments Pvt.Ltd.
The plaintiffs allege infringement of their patent titled 'LED Lighting System in Inflatable Tower'. The defendants have filed a counter claim and seek clarifications regarding an ex-parte injunction.
NHK Spring Co Ltd v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
NHK Spring Co Ltd appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their patent application on grounds of 'lack of inventive step'. The appellant argued that the Impugned Order failed to provide adequate reasoning as to how the ground of obviousness was made out based on cited prior art. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's analysis insufficient.
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
Purshotam Keshwani & Ors. v.Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding alleged non-compliance with a prior injunction restraining the use of the trademark 'LIBAS'. The court clarified that while the defendants were previously granted a limited, temporary exception allowing them to use a specific logo format ('RIYAZ GANGJI' in bold with 'LIBAS' underneath), this pro tem arrangement did not supersede the original comprehensive injunction. The court directed the parties to engage in settlement talks regarding any alleged violations of the standalone mark 'LIBAS', setting a date for compliance.
Bayona Spa v.Varun Exports & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.
M/s.D.R.Raanka Bros v.Mr.Sumti A.Challani & M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros seeking rectification of registered trademarks held by Mr. Sumti A. Challani and M/s. Challani Ranka Jewellery. The court found a 'striking similarity' between the petitioner's established marks (D.R./D.R.Raanka Bros) and the respondent's newly registered marks (C.R.J., C.R.), which were obtained after 2003. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the register within three weeks.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Molecular Loop Biosciences' patents covering dual-indexing in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The petitioner argued the claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Gloor and Parameswaran. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR because the Examiner failed to consider relevant prior art during prosecution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia Technologies Oy's patents related to hybrid video coding and prediction error encoding. The petition argues that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically Koga, Lin, and Narroschke. Petitioners assert these combinations teach predictable improvements in codec implementation.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron's patent (11910984) covering surface cleaning apparatus. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on Dimbylow and Howes.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Molecular Loop Biosciences regarding next-generation sequencing technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Parameswaran and Gloor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
M/S. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Elder Projects Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Elder Projects Limited alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINCODER for pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, the parties successfully reached an amicable resolution through mediation.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
Smt. Uma Rathi v.Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Smt. Uma Rathi initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Ratni Power' registered by Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd., citing grounds under Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court granted exemptions for filing certain documents while simultaneously directing that notice be issued to the respondents. This marks the formal commencement of litigation challenging the validity and registration of the disputed trademark.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Private Limited, M/s.Flora Foods v.Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, Zomato Limited, Swiggy India
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, alongside online platforms Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar names like 'KARAIKUDI AACHI BRIYANI MANDI' and mandatory orders to remove these listings from digital platforms. While the judgment details the extensive claims for injunctions and removal, it does not provide a final conclusive ruling on all reliefs in this excerpt.
Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd. v.R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd., preventing R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr. from continuing to use packaging that is deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress for Ball Head Racers. The court found a prima facie case regarding the defendants' attempt to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff, noting the similarity in color combination and overall get-up despite differences in trademarks.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Seales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Seales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petitioner had sought to remove and expunge the trademark registration 'TINTOMETER' from the register, citing grounds of wrongful registration or non-use. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on two successive occasions, the petition was dismissed for default.
Sfp Sons India Private Limited v.Mr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The case involves a dispute over patent infringement where the plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed their patents. The parties have reached a consent decree to resolve the matter amicably.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Azista Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The suit concerns the infringement of Plaintiff No. 1's patent (IN 297581) related to the drug Osimertinib, a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancers. The Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction against the Defendants who were allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing versions under the brand OSITAB.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation filed a writ petition challenging an order that dismissed its pre-grant opposition and permitted the grant of Indian Patent No. 449435. The Court held that since effective mechanisms like post-grant opposition or revocation petitions exist under the Patents Act, 1970, the writ petition could not be entertained.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark-related suits, including infringement and rectification petitions, involving M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court framed a comprehensive set of 11 issues to be determined during the trial. These issues cover core disputes such as trademark infringement, passing off, validity of registrations, and the scope of assignment rights related to the mark 'DEHLVI'. This consolidation streamlines the litigation process for both parties.
Hp Organic Foods Private Limited v.Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hp Organic Foods Private Limited against Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors. The court allowed procedural exemptions for the plaintiff, including filing additional documents and waiving pre-litigation mediation. Crucially, regarding the injunction application (Order XXXIX), the court noted the plaintiff's claims of extensive sales and deceptive similarity in the 'INDANA FRESH' brand used by the defendants. The court directed notice to the defendants and mandated them to maintain detailed accounts of their product sales.
Srinath Kumbargeri Venkatachalappa v.C.A. Shivaram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in trademark disputes involving the brand 'PARIMALA COFFEE'. The court granted exemptions regarding document submission formats, allowing the petitioner flexibility due to logistical constraints. Crucially, the court also allowed the petitioner to file digitally signed and notarized affidavits despite their attorney being abroad, streamlining procedural requirements for complex IP litigation.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
SMAXTEC and its affiliate contest ST Reproductive Technologies' Director Review request, defending the Board’s obviousness findings for several claims of a livestock health monitoring patent and offering limited remand only to clarify claim 18 and reconcile claims 6, 19, and 20.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
In its preliminary reply, the patent owner defends the 8,823,515 patent against smaXtec's IPR petition by asserting that the Trevarthen reference was publicly accessible before the critical date and that the Laitinen disclosure satisfies the ‘implanted’ claim language.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s findings on its anti-counterfeiting patent (US 11,448,863). The petition argues the Board did not err and that the request raises new, waived arguments. The Board’s decision is therefore urged to be denied.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Lumenco seeks PTAB Director Review of the board’s finding that several micro‑mirror claims are obvious over Fuhse847. The request argues misapplied obviousness standards and improper reliance on an expert lacking POSITA credentials.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The USPTO Director denied the petitioners’ request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs concerning patents 10,901,191 and 11,448,863.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Lumenco's anti-counterfeiting patent (10317691), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.