Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 4701–4800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard's attempt to invalidate Milestone Entertainment's gaming patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art references Kelly and Paulsen.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned to challenge Milestone Entertainment's patent on grounds of obviousness over prior art references like Walker and Kelly. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are unpatentable. This sets up a trial proceeding focused on gaming parameter modification systems.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Milestone Entertainment's patent (11335164) covering electronic game systems and prizing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, primarily based on obviousness over prior art references like Kelly.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr. v.Max Healthcare Institute Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the Commercial Court's handling of an interlocutory injunction request concerning trademark infringement. The court found that the lower court failed to consider the merits of the respondent's application, merely granting the injunction to implement a prior judgment. Consequently, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Commercial Court for a fresh, de novo decision on the interim injunction, ensuring all legal aspects are properly considered.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR challenge to Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency patent focuses on Claim 8’s variable multiplier. Milestone’s response argues the cited prior art does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier, rendering the petition’s grounds insufficient.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a sur‑reply in an IPR challenging Activision Blizzard’s claim that claim 8 of U.S. Patent 10,825,294 is unpatentable. The patent owner asserts the petitioner’s evidence fails to show a variable multiplier for virtual currency over time and that new arguments are improper.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that the prior art discloses key virtual‑currency features of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The response stresses missing disclosures of a multiplier and image‑based conversion, and a lack of motivation to combine references, seeking denial of the petition.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting Milestone Entertainment’s virtual‑currency gaming patent was rejected. The patent owner showed the prior art fails to disclose key claim elements and that no motivation to combine existed.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment’s sur‑reply argues that Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition fails to show that claim 9 is anticipated or obvious, emphasizing that the cited Schneier reference does not disclose a time‑varying multiplier for virtual currency.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a response to Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition targeting 18 claims of U.S. Patent 10,650,635. The patent owner argues that the petitioner’s two grounds, based on Schneier143 (alone and with Okita), do not disclose the variable‑over‑time multiplier of Claim 9. Accordingly, Milestone seeks a finding that Claim 9 is not unpatentable.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Mullen Industries' VR gaming patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Meta Platforms Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Mullen Industries’ location‑based AR gaming patent (U.S. 10,179,277). The petition relies on obviousness grounds under §103, citing Jaszlics and Rallison as prior art, and argues no discretionary denial factors apply.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed a petition for inter partes review of Milestone Entertainment’s U.S. Patent No. 10,825,294, asserting that its claims are obvious over prior art relating to virtual currency in games. The petition relies on Schneier143 and Okita references and seeks institution of the review.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Activision Blizzard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Milestone Entertainment’s 10,650,635 patent covering virtual‑currency mechanisms in games, arguing obviousness over prior‑art patents Schneier143 and Okita.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate Mullen Industries’ AR gaming patent (US 11,033,821), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and lack of written description. The petition seeks institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a).
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
Court decision.
Meta Platforms, Ic. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent (8585476). The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v.Milestone Entertainment, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Activision Blizzard's IPR against Milestone Entertainment regarding a gaming patent. The challenger successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art related to virtual currency and in-game economies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully petitioned to challenge Mullen Industries' patent in an IPR proceeding concerning location-based gaming technology. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, leading to the institution of the review.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.Union of India
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited challenged the granting of Indian Patent No. 439474, which was issued despite a rejected pre-grant opposition filed by the petitioner. The core dispute centered on whether the Controller had adequately reasoned and considered the material evidence presented by both parties regarding novelty and inventive step. Although the court initially questioned the maintainability of the writ petition as an appeal in disguise, it ultimately allowed the petitioner to file a post-grant opposition.
Robert Bosch Limited v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Robert Bosch Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201944047460), which was initially rejected by the Deputy Controller of Patents on grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and exclusion under Section 3(m) because it was a method claim. The High Court set aside the rejection based on the finding that the claimed process is an inventive process, not merely a theoretical or mental act, and remanded the matter for re-examination on non-Section 3(m) grounds.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed an order rejecting its patent application (No. 7133/CHENP/2009) on the grounds that the invention was a non-patentable 'business method' under Section 3(k). The High Court examined the claim and held that since the invention involves using software to improve system functionality for verification, it is not merely a business method. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-consideration.
Iconic Ip Interests Llc and The Hershey Company v.Dukes Consumer Care Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
Iconic IP Interests LLC and The Hershey Company successfully petitioned the Madras High Court for the rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark 'TWO MUCH'. The petitioners argued that the respondent's mark had not been used continuously for five years from its date of registration. Given the lack of evidence of use by Dukes Consumer Care Limited, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar to remove the impugned entry from the register.
M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh
In this appeal before the Madras High Court, M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to dismiss an opposition based on the finding that 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' were different marks. The court noted evidence of prior use by Goldmedal's predecessor since 1987, and crucially, referenced a separate Civil Court decree confirming the deceptive similarity between the two trademarks. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the Registry's finding of difference would not be binding on the appellant in future proceedings related to these marks.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) VALINEA ENERGIE rue du Champ du Cerf
Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, in which Amazon raised a FRAND competition law defense based on a compulsory license. The dispute at the appellate stage centered on the production of license agreements, with the Local Division Munich having ordered Nokia to produce certain agreements while rejecting Amazon's request for additional agreements and royalty statements. The Court of Appeal issued a procedural order addressing Amazon's request for leave to file a further reply to Nokia's appeal response.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/03/2025 sur la demande de révision d'une ordonnance ex parte (R. 197.4 RdP) REQUERANT (Défendeur à la procédure au principal) MAGUIN SAS 2, rue Pierre Semard 0280
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google responded to Withrow Networks’ request for Director Review of the institution of claims 1‑9 of U.S. Patent 10,771,849. The Board concluded the request raised new, unsupported arguments and did not meet the limited statutory criteria for review. The Director Review request was denied, leaving the institution standing.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Withrow Networks has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-00775. Google, the petitioner, may submit a limited response within five business days, and no new evidence is allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed a Director Review petition seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on a mercury‑control patent. The patent owner argues the MDL already provides a more efficient forum and that the Board’s action would cause duplicative litigation.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and other petitioners filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning IPL and WPL after settlements with Birchtech Corp. The motion cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. §317 and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to keep their settlement agreements confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy settled its IPR against BirchTech’s ’370 patent, prompting the Board to terminate the case for MidAmerican while the proceeding remains active against PacifiCorp.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has asked the PTAB Director to review six IPRs involving Audio Pod’s patent 9,319,720. The patent owner must reply within five business days, limited to the issues raised and without new evidence.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,933,370 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review involving WEC. The motion cites statutory requirements and public‑policy benefits of settlement, seeking Board approval to end the proceeding.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and BirchTech Corp. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under federal rules. The motion cites 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations to limit public access to the agreement.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Utility consortiums including PacifiCorp settled IPRs covering several power‑grid patents, resulting in the termination of the proceeding for two petitioners while the Board kept the case open for the remaining parties. The settlement agreement was designated business‑confidential.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
Court decision.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director notifies PacifiCorp and MES, Inc. that Director Review requests have been filed for two IPRs. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response, and no new evidence may be introduced.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and affiliates have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 29 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’720 patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is inappropriate.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and affiliated utilities have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 10,933,370, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues the patent lacks written‑description support for its priority date. The Board’s decision on institution is pending.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have filed a petition to institute an IPR against MES’s 10,933,370 patent covering mercury‑removal methods, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that the claimed additive‑to‑sorbent ratio lacks patentable weight.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 13‑15, 17‑18 of Dialect’s 9,263,039 patent, asserting they are obvious over prior art from Maes and Ross. The petition argues the examiner never evaluated this combination and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Google LLC et al. v.Withrow Networks Inc.
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Withrow Networks Inc., challenging nine claims related to Adaptive Bitrate Video Transmission. The Board instituted the proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Carmel and Mattavelli.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition challenging a mercury removal patent (10933370) because the petitioner had filed a second, ranked petition on the same claims. The Board followed the Director's instruction to select only one petition.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR petition against Birchtech Corp.'s '370 patent, finding that PacifiCorp et al. met the standard for reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds. The Board also addressed and rejected arguments from Patent Owner regarding written description and enablement issues concerning bromide compounds.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The Director granted review of institution decisions in IPRs involving PacifiCorp and Birchtech, vacating the initial rulings. The Board was remanded to determine which single petition should be instituted for each patent due to concerns over procedural efficiency.
PacifiCorp et al. v.MES, Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR on PacifiCorp's claims against Birchtech Corp. regarding flue gas desulfurization technology, overcoming a time-bar defense raised by the Patent Owner. The Board found Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for institution across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche filed a suit alleging infringement of its species patent (IN 334397) for the drug Risdiplam, marketed as EVRYSDI®, by Natco Pharma Limited. The plaintiffs sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and selling the API. However, the court found that the defendant had raised a credible challenge regarding the validity of the patent. Considering the public interest in affordable medicine for rare diseases like SMA, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction, though it clarified that damages would be payable if the plaintiffs ultimately succeed in the trial.
Neoculi Pty Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Neoculi Pty Ltd appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, Kolkata, which rejected its application for an antibacterial pharmaceutical composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive steps, unpatentability under Section 3(e), and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
Barco NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 732 827, filed an application for provisional measures against Yealink entities before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court. The Court held that the LD Brussels was territorially competent to hear the application, but dismissed the application for provisional measures due to lack of urgency, finding that Barco had acted negligently or hesitated in seeking relief. Barco was ordered to bear the legal costs of the Yealink defendants up to the applicable ceiling of €112,000.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Hand Held Products, Inc. against Scandit AG and Scandit, Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 819 062, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the defendants. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, the plaintiff withdrew the action following an out-of-court settlement, and the defendants subsequently withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared all proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% partial reimbursement of court fees to each side, while noting that no decision on party costs was requested.
Mul-T-Lock France, Mul-T-Lock Suisse v.IMC Créations
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/03/2025 REQUERANTS Mul-T-Lock France 4 avenue d’Ouessant, Bât E 91140 - Villebon-Sur-Yvette - FR Représenté par Stanislas Roux-Vailla
ZENTIVA K.S., ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.Respondent
(ROP 313) 1) Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a direct impact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. 2) The expression 'made in support, in whole or in part, of a claim, order or relief sought by one of the parties' in Rule 313.2 RoP must be interpreted as meaning that the intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party who has been supported, and therefore in accor
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the PTAB's institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, including the 9,954,922 patent. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper under settled‑expectations and discretionary authority. The response urges the Director to reject Amazon’s review request.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the IPR file and restrict third‑party access.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,908,508, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review that had been instituted earlier in the year.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz and Phelan Group filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00758 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 9,908,508.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested PTAB Director Review for six IPRs, including the dispute over Audio Pod IP's patent 10,805,111. The patent owner may respond within five business days, but cannot submit new evidence. The Director will determine whether to grant the review.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Audio Pod IP’s 10,805,111 patent covering digital talking‑book playback, arguing that all 16 claims are obvious over prior art such as Prabhakaran and DTB.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.Dialect, LLC
Microsoft seeks to invalidate Dialect’s 9,495,957 patent covering natural‑language processing in mobile devices, arguing that claims 7 and 8 are obvious over prior art such as Maes, Coffman, Kennewick and Weissman, and urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al. v.Phelan Group, LLC
Mercedes-Benz Group AG successfully challenged The Phelan Group's driver authentication patent (9908508) at the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Murphy and Petrik. This decision significantly strengthens Mercedes-Benz's position in related district court litigation against Phelan Group.
Levi Strauss And Co. v.Sharanjeet Singh
Levi Strauss And Co. filed a suit against Sharanjeet Singh and M/s Chilly alleging infringement, passing off, and dilution of its iconic trade marks (including 'Levis' and 'Two Horse Logo') used on apparel goods. The court found that the defendants had deceptively adopted these trademarks in relation to similar goods.
M/S Crompton Greaves Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
In this rectification case, M/S Crompton Greaves Limited sought to rectify Trademark No. 1131780 used by a respondent. However, given that the respondent had simultaneously filed an application seeking cancellation of the same trademark before the Registrar of Trade Marks, the High Court directed the Registrar to address the cancellation request directly. Consequently, the rectification application was disposed of without further proceedings.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the judgment that rejected his appeal regarding Patent Application No.5606/CHENP/2012. The petitioner argued there were patent errors concerning Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically related to technical effect on hardware. However, the High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The plaintiff Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH and Omni-Pac GmbH, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together in a joint proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested Director Review of six IPRs targeting its audio‑pod patent. The PTAB will decide whether a limited review is permitted, with the patent owner allowed a brief response but no new evidence.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
The USPTO denied Tessell's request for Director Review of the institution denial in its IPR against Nutanix's patent. The Board affirmed the earlier decision, leaving the institution denial in place.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Nutanix’s patent 10,817,157. The petition argues the Director exceeded authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) by applying assignor estoppel, which Federal Circuit precedent bars in IPRs.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 12‑17 of Audio Pod IP’s 8,738,740 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering audio bookmarking and descriptor files.
Tessell, Inc. v.Nutanix, Inc.
Tessell, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑19 of Nutanix’s U.S. Patent No. 10,817,157, arguing that the claimed database‑provisioning UI is obvious over known prior art. The petition also argues there is no basis for discretionary denial, urging the Board to institute review.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The petitioner filed a Review Application challenging the rejection of his earlier appeal, which had been rejected on both maintainability grounds (Section 117A) and merits. The petitioner argued that patent errors existed in the interpretation of Sections 10(4) and 3(k), specifically concerning technical effect and best mode. The Madras High Court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent.
AMST – SYSTEMTECHNIK GMBH v.Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order treating its Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn due to failure to request examination within the stipulated period. The court considered the sequence of events, noting that the petitioner intended to prosecute the application and citing previous judgments where similar facts led to non-withdrawal.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Bristol Myers Squibb challenged communications from the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs regarding Patent Application No. 5948/CHENP/2014, arguing that additional documents submitted by the opponent (Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance) should not be considered due to procedural non-compliance. The court ultimately declined to interfere with the decision to receive these documents but directed that the proceedings must conclude expeditiously within three months.
Akebia Therapeutics, INC. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Akebia Therapeutics appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 201647000423). The rejection was primarily based on the argument that amending the original method-of-treatment claim to a pharmaceutical composition claim violated Section 59(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside this order and remanded the matter for re-consideration.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The review petition was filed by Respondent No. 2 challenging the original judgment dated January 15, 2025. The core dispute revolved around whether raising a defense of invalidity in an infringement suit (Section 107) prevents the patentee from filing a separate revocation petition (Section 64).
Anand Sarup Sachdeva M/S Diachi International v.Rex Sewing Machine Co. Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking correction of clerical errors in a previous order related to a trademark dispute. The Court found that certain discrepancies, including the petitioner's name and the scope of cancellation, were inadvertent mistakes. Consequently, the court corrected the relevant paragraphs, ensuring the restoration of M/s Daichi International's trademark registration (No. 696905) while confirming the cancellation of the respondent's mark (No. 1573729). This order clarifies the legal standing of both parties in the ongoing dispute.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The appeal concerned the non-payment of service tax on royalty charges received by M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co. from group companies for using the 'TTK' logo. The Department alleged that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant argued that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
The Appellant challenged demands raised by the Department regarding non-payment of service tax on royalty charges collected from group companies for using the "TTK" logo. The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service Tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under the Copyright Act and thus exempt.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This cost-setting proceeding arose from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, in which the plaintiff MSG Maschinenbau GmbH sued defendant EJP Maschinen GmbH. After the EPO Board of Appeal revoked the patent in its entirety, MSG withdrew the main infringement claim, and the court ordered MSG to bear the costs of both the infringement and revocation proceedings. EJP filed an application seeking reimbursement of €20,797.00 in costs for the infringement proceedings, and the court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the claimed cost items under Article 69 of the UPC Agreement and Rules 150–152 of the Rules of Procedure.
EJP Maschinen GmbH v.MSG Maschinenbau GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the reimbursement of costs arising from prior infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1. After the EPO Board of Appeal fully revoked the patent, the plaintiff (MSG Maschinenbau GmbH) withdrew its infringement action, and the court ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs of both the infringement proceedings and the revocation counterclaim proceedings, each with a value in dispute of €500,000. The defendant (EJP Maschinen GmbH) filed an application seeking reimbursement of its costs, including €20,797.00 for the infringement proceedings.
Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H. under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_146/2024) involving Sanofi entities as claimants and STADA entities as defendants regarding European patent EP 2 493 466. Medac had uploaded a privileged and confidential letter from Sanofi as 'Exhibit 2' in unredacted form, prompting objections from Sanofi. The court permitted the withdrawal of the application and the exhibit, ordered Medac to bear the costs of removing the exhibit from the CMS, imposed a recurring penalty for any future use of the document, and issued a warning to Medac's representative for negligent breach of the Code of Conduct.
Chint Solar Netherlands B.V. , Astronergy Europe GmbH , Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH , Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
With regard to a country that fails to fulfil its obligations under the Hague Service Convention, it has to be assumed that an order for reimbursement of costs by the UPC may not be enforceable in this country or just in an unduly burdensome way. Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_425/2024 ACT_42211/2024 App_54919/2024 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE INFRINGEMENT PROCEEDINGS) 1. Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., NO.1 Jisheng Road, Jianshan New Zone, 314415 Haining City, Zhejiang
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
This case concerns a rectification of a scheduling order in an infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court identified a typographical error in Item 4 of the scheduling order dated 18 March 2025 and ordered its correction to accurately reflect the oral hearing arrangements. The corrected Item 4 specifies that the oral hearing is scheduled for 15 January 2026 at 9:00 a.m., to be held in person in Munich.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of Audio Pod IP’s ’266 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack proper priority support.