Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6301–6400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Intelligent Wellhead Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision on its wellhead patent, keeping the institution in place.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Downing Wellhead Equipment has requested a Director Review of a PGR challenge to its wellhead patent, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 78 claims of Downing's hydraulic fracturing patent, arguing the claims are abstract, lack written description, contain new matter, and are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Yangtze Memory’s ESD bus patent, arguing obviousness over Yoshinaga, Saint, and Haralabidis and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al. v.Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Infineon’s 8,264,003 GaN cascode patent, arguing that each claim is obvious over known prior‑art combinations. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al. v.Downing Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted PGR on claims 1-78 of the '952 patent after reviewing multiple grounds, including eligibility (§ 101), obviousness (§ 103), and written description/enablement (§ 112). The Board found a likelihood of success for Petitioner despite arguments from Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent, securing institution on multiple grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found sufficient evidence that combinations of prior art references would render the claims unpatentable.
M/S ILU A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF MRS VIDUSHI CHAWLA v.ASIAN HOBBY CRAFTS LLP AND ANR
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by M/S ILU against Asian Hobby Crafts LLP, successfully challenging the validity of the 'DREAMCATCHER' trademark. The court ruled that since 'DREAMCATCHER' is a generic and descriptive term for a specific type of decorative product, its registration violated Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This decision reinforces the principle that no party can claim an exclusive monopoly over common or descriptive terms defining a product.
Puma Se v.Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.
Pt Tech, Llc v.The Controller Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Anr.
Pt Tech, Llc challenged the actions of The Controller of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in accepting a counter statement beyond the statutory period under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding procedural violations related to evidence filing. Crucially, the court directed that the proceedings concerning opposition application no. 1307531 shall remain suspended until the next hearing date, providing temporary relief to the petitioner.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 13/11/2024 ABSTRACT : 1. Conformément à l'article 69 de la Convention sur les brevets européens (CBE) et du Protocole sur son interprétation, la présente Cour
Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.Win Health Pharma Through Its Proprietor Mr. Sanjay Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the validity of the defendant's registered trademarks, 'WIN HEALTH PHARMA,' under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core dispute revolves around prior use rights, as the plaintiff claims established goodwill with marks like 'WIN-HEALTHCARE' since 2005, while the defendant holds registrations for similar names. Given that both parties presented substantial arguments regarding priority and similarity, the court found prima facie merit in the plaintiffs' plea of invalidity.
Qualcomm Inc. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_54/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12 November 2024 Claimant 1) Headwater Research LLC (Main proceeding party - Claimant) - 110 North College Ave., Suite 1116 - 75702 - Tyler, Texas - US
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Article 83(4) UPCA regarding the withdrawal of an opt-out from the UPC's jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'Unless an action has already been brought before a national court' refers only to actions brought during the transitional regime, not to proceedings commenced prior to it. Consequently, the Court set aside the Court of First Instance's orders dismissing AIM's infringement action and provisional measures request, and referred the actions back to the Court of First Instance for further adjudication.
Sportradar AG et al. v.SportsCastr Inc. (d/b/a PANDA Interactive)
Sportradar AG petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against SportsCastr's U.S. Patent 10,805,687 covering real‑time sports video and data streaming, arguing the claims are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑9 and argues against discretionary denial.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited
Astrazeneca filed suit against Westcoast Pharmaceutical Works Limited alleging infringement of its patent (IN 297581) covering the cancer drug Osimertinib. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions and damages, asserting that the defendant's offer to contractually manufacture and sell the patented compound constituted infringement. Despite initial defenses by the defendant regarding regulatory approval issues, the court found that due to the defendant's failure to file a written statement within the statutory period, the suit was decreed in favor of AstraZeneca, granting them relief and substantial costs.
Idemia Identity & Security France v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Idemia Identity & Security France challenged a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, which denied patent protection for its invention related to 'Cryptography on a simplified elliptical curve'. The respondents argued that the invention was merely a mathematical formula or business method, thus falling under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. However, the Madras High Court quashed the rejection order, finding it arbitrary and non-speaking because the respondents failed to address key contentions raised by the appellant regarding its technical contribution.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse grant for its patent application concerning methods and devices for authenticating electronic payment cards using an electronic token. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims fell under Section 3(k) as being a 'business method' or 'computer programme per se'. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this refusal, holding that the invention addresses a technical problem—enhancing security in contactless payments—rather than merely automating a business process. The court affirmed that the technical contribution makes the subject matter patentable.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Vaibhav Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, ordering the cancellation of a competing trademark and copyright held by Vaibhav Vohra & Anr. The court found that the respondent's mark 'PHENSERYL' was phonetically and visually deceptively similar to the petitioner’s long-established mark 'PHENSEDYL,' leading to potential consumer confusion in the pharmaceutical sector. Furthermore, the court cancelled the associated copyright registration due to substantial imitation of the petitioner's original artistic packaging.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any claims were instituted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential and the proceeding terminated.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,440,559 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed a petition to institute IPR on VideoLabs' ’559 patent covering content‑flow control. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Kloba and Robbin and asserts no discretionary denial grounds.
Panchhi Petha Store v.Union Of India & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron submits an authorized response defending the PTAB's institution decision for its memory‑chip etching patent, arguing the Board properly evaluated the Nakajima, Tessariol, and Mushiga references. The Patent Owner's objections are portrayed as mischaracterizations of the prior art.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over the ’435 hydraulic fracturing patent, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and termination is sought for judicial economy.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate IPR2025‑00031 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑19 of its oilfield‑services patent, arguing the Board misapplied the Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors after a district court denied a stay.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
U.S. Well Services sought a Director Review of the PTAB institution decisions, alleging the petitioners violated a Sotera stipulation. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs to proceed to final written decisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek dismissal under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
The USPTO denied Liberty Energy's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00031, leaving the IPR proceeding intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Court decision.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,972,654 B2 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 10,655,435, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art pump‑control references. The petition argues the case meets the Fintiv institutional factors and requests the Board to institute the review.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
The PTAB denied Catalyst OrthoScience's Post-Grant Review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent (12,023,254). The denial was based on the advanced stage and significant overlap with co-pending district court litigation.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D memory structures was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Micron failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its obviousness grounds over prior art combinations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned to challenge key claims in a semiconductor memory patent held by Yangtze Memory Technologies, leading to institution at the PTAB. The Board focused on obviousness (103) over Nakajima, balancing technical merits with parallel litigation factors.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies because the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any remaining claims after several key claims were disclaimed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that it believes misinterpreted the means‑plus‑function claim language in NL Giken’s video‑processing patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board’s construction flip‑flopping and procedural errors warrant vacatur under §314(a).
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01322, leaving the institution of patent 9,022,294 B2 in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates settled the IPR against NL Giken over U.S. Patent 9,948,968. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, treating the settlement as confidential. The proceeding is now closed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon and its affiliates jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01345 after reaching a confidential settlement with patent holder NL Giken. The motion cites public‑policy reasons favoring settlement and requests Board approval to end the proceeding.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner DH International Ltd. has requested Director Review in IPR2024-01322 concerning Google LLC's challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,022,294. The Board has limited the petitioner's response to a 15‑page brief addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence permitted.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
DH International Ltd. seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its Bluetooth‑related patent, arguing the Board used an improper subjective standard and that the cited prior art does not teach the required activation cue.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against DH International’s patent, rejecting claims of abuse of discretion and improper pre‑institution briefing.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The patent owner seeks Director Review, asserting the PTAB misinterpreted “close proximity” and the activation cue in its Bluetooth‑based data‑exchange patent. It claims the Board’s reliance on Mooney and Lee references is unsupported, urging reversal of the unpatentability finding for claims 1‑20.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 10‑21 of U.S. Patent 9,745,123, arguing they are obvious over earlier seed‑handling manuals and patents. The petition argues that discretionary‑denial factors do not support a denial and requests institution.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 smart‑card patent, arguing they are obvious over a combination of prior‑art smart‑card references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial of institution.
Par-Kan Company, LLC et al. v.Unverferth Mfg. Co., Inc.
Par‑Kan has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 16‑23 of Unverferth’s seed‑carrier patent, arguing obviousness over several prior‑art manuals and patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial factors weigh against a denial, urging the Board to institute the review.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of DH International’s ’294 patent covering multimode cellular phone data switching, arguing that Mooney and Lee disclose the same features and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against NL Giken's patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references Lee and Hunt. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 12 challenged claims, advancing the case toward trial.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge DH International Ltd.'s patentability, leading the Board to institute IPR proceedings on all 20 claims. The Board adopted a broad construction of 'activation cue' favorable to Google and found that the Petitioner met the standard for institution based on obviousness grounds over prior art references Mooney and Lee.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against DH International Ltd.'s payment card patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically regarding the obviousness claims over Ong and Hoff.
Curio Bioscience et al. v.Prognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition brought by Curio Bioscience against Prognosys and 10X Genomics, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over Cantor or anticipated by Frisen. The Board upheld the Patent Owner's position regarding spatial analysis in tissue samples.
Google LLC v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 20 claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable over prior art references Mooney and Lee. The Board successfully construed key terms like 'activation cue' functionally, agreeing that a quality Bluetooth signal satisfies this requirement.
Neetha Madala (Proprietor of M/s.Harsha Hospitals) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Neetha Madala's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks, setting aside an earlier refusal to register her device mark 'HARSHA HOSPITALS'. The court found that the Registrar had issued a cryptic, non-speaking order without clearly explaining how the mark infringed Sections 9 or 11 of the Act. Furthermore, the court noted that the appellant had subsequently registered other marks, strengthening her claim for distinctiveness in her specific class (Class 44). Consequently, the application was restored and directed to proceed with the trademark registration process.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and prior Board guidance to support termination.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their PTAB inter partes review disputes, leading to termination of four IPRs covering Dyson vacuum technology patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,903,546 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed an Initial Petition challenging 15 claims of Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s patent related to hand vacuum cleaner configuration. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious, relying on two distinct combinations of prior art references.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s vacuum cleaner patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found that Dyson adequately demonstrated a motivation to combine prior art references for several claimed features, leading to institution on 13 claims.
Havells India Ltd v.Mohit Talwar & Ors.
Havells India Ltd filed a suit against Mohit Talwar & Ors. concerning alleged infringement of its registered designs and trademark on Distribution Boards. The current order addresses an application seeking modification of the interim injunction, which required the Commissioner of Customs to stop the export of infringing products. To facilitate compliance with this suspension order, the court directed the defendants (No. 1, 2, and 3) to provide their Importer Exporter Code (IEC) details to enable effective enforcement.
Ask Automotive Limited v.A.S.K. Enterprises
The plaintiff, Ask Automotive Limited, a major supplier of automotive friction products under the well-known trade mark 'ASK', filed a suit against A.S.K. Enterprises for infringement of its trademark and passing off. The court found that the defendant was illegally manufacturing and selling goods bearing the identical trademark 'ASK' to deceive the public.
Samsudeen A v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Salama Eye Hospital Limited
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Samsudeen A against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to abandon a trademark application. The core issue was whether service via email, as per TM Rules, was sufficient when the applicant claimed non-receipt of the opposition notice. Applying a purposive interpretation in the interest of justice, the court ruled that since the appellant could not prove receipt, he was deemed not to have received the notice, thereby quashing the abandonment order and allowing him a chance to file his counter-statement.
M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., finding a prima facie case of infringement against Chetan Singh Rajpurohit Trading As Kaveri Electricals & Ors. The court recognized that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks was likely to cause market confusion and irreparable injury to the plaintiff, who holds registered trademarks and copyrights in 'GOLDMEDAL'. This order temporarily halts the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods bearing infringing labels until the final hearing.
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
Acc Steel Pvt Ltd v.Acc Limited
Court decision.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on the alleged misidentification of the Defendant, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. The case proceeded with a Statement of Defense to Revocation filed in December 2023, and an oral hearing was held on 10 September 2024. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including the Court's power to limit a patent under Article 65(3) UPCA, the dispositive principle governing party requests, and claim interpretation as a question of law.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A., holder of European Patent EP 2519412 relating to a tire for motor vehicles and a pair of tires for motor vehicles, filed an application for provisional and precautionary measures against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. (China) and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH (Germany) ahead of the EICMA international motorcycle exhibition (November 5-10, 2024), alleging that the defendants would exhibit infringing products. The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction but invited Pirelli to limit its request to seizure, delivery of infringing goods, and procedural costs. Pirelli accordingly narrowed its application, and the Single Judge proceeded to decide the matter under Rule 212(2) given the extreme urgency.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs, Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 504 991 B1, brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. The decision addresses the legal framework for evaluating inventive step under Article 56 EPC, emphasizing the objective approach, the role of the person skilled in the art, and the relevance of the state of the art. The Court also addressed procedural principles under the front-loaded system of UPC proceedings, including the obligation of parties to set out their full case early and the possibility of substantiating arguments in reply submissions.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed a request for provisional measures against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. (Helios) and CCPIT in connection with European Patent EP 3519207, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' ahead of the EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan. Pirelli alleged that Helios's HA-51R and HA-51F tires reproduced all features of claim 1 of EP207 and sought ex parte injunction, seizure, and provisional costs. The Court declined to grant the ex parte injunction and invited Pirelli to either limit its request to seizure, delivery of goods, and costs, or withdraw entirely; Pirelli opted to limit its request accordingly.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. And other
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs' order refusing to grant a patent application (No. 201947017337). The appellant subsequently sought permission from the High Court to withdraw the appeal.
Ms Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.The Commissioner Of Customs Appeals & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order sets the stage for a complex dispute concerning Intellectual Property Rights enforcement at customs. The petitioner has raised several critical questions, including whether protection can be granted without adhering strictly to the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, and whether failure to mention specific goods in import documents constitutes misdeclaration. The court has allowed procedural applications and scheduled the main hearing for February 12, 2025.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This case concerned an action for patent infringement brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers regarding European Patent EP2145848. The defendant had acknowledged the validity of the patent and the infringement without raising any defense. The court addressed several procedural and substantive issues, including the suspension of proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, the discretionary nature of permanent injunctions under Article 63(1) UPCA, penalty payments under Article 63(2) UPCA, publication of decisions under Article 80 UPCA, moral damages under Article 68(3a) UPCA, and provisional damages under Rule 119 RoP.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for a plant‑utility patent, arguing the Board created an improper bright‑line rule that shields patents based on secret parent lines. The petition cites statutory and policy grounds, seeking Director review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya Ramu v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This procedural order concerns an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to the respondent's appeal response in a patent infringement appeal. The underlying dispute involves EP 3 866 051, where the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) had issued an interim injunction on August 27, 2024 against Scandit for indirect infringement of claims 1 and 10. Scandit sought leave to file a reply to address what it characterized as new arguments raised by Hand Held Products regarding features 1.7 to 1.9 of claim 1 and to introduce additional prior art.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg on 1 November 2024 in proceedings concerning European Patent EP4108782 held by Harvard College. The defendant Vizgen filed requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts from the discovery process of a parallel US proceeding. The requested materials included fourteen documents from Harvard's discovery production, twenty-one documents from 10x Genomics' discovery production, and transcripts of depositions of various personnel from Harvard, 10x Genomics, and Bio-Techne.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL v.Valeo Electrification
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) before the Düsseldorf Local Division against three Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604 B1, a European patent relating to a rotary electric machine with angular position adjustment. The court granted the preliminary injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease manufacturing, offering, and selling infringing embodiments, with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations subject to security, and conditioned enforcement on the Applicant providing EUR 2,500,000 in security.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
SodaStream Industries Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 793 917 B1 concerning a device for carbonating liquid with pressurized gas, brought an infringement action against Aarke AB regarding its 'Aarke Carbonator Pro' sparkling water makers. The Local Division Düsseldorf found that the Defendant's product infringed Claim 1 of the patent in suit, rejecting the Defendant's Gillette defense and arguments that the claims should be limited to preferred embodiments. The Court granted injunctive relief, information orders, product surrender/recall, and an interim award of EUR 250,000 in damages, but dismissed the request for publication of the decision in public media.
CrowdStrike, Inc. et al. v.GoSecure, Inc.
The PTAB Director has sent a review request for IPR2025-00068 and IPR2025-00070, instructing CrowdStrike to file a concise response without new evidence. The email sets a five‑page limit and a five‑day deadline for filing.