Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 6901–7000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited
In a trademark infringement suit, Mankind Pharma Limited sought an injunction against Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited regarding the use of the mark 'TOFASTAR' versus 'TOBASTAR'. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Furthermore, both parties indicated a willingness to settle the dispute at the earliest opportunity, leading the court to renotify the case for further proceedings.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Sachdeva And Sons Industres Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted rectification in favor of the petitioner, Koteshwar Chemfood Industries Pvt. Ltd., regarding the disputed trademark 'PRIME'. The court found that the respondent's registration for 'PRIME' should be limited to rice and allied goods, specifically deleting salt and spices from its scope. This decision was based on the petitioner's long-standing use of the mark in Class 30 (iodized salt) since 1995, establishing prior goodwill and preventing consumer confusion.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
This is an interim procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation of oral hearings in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, is proceeding against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The order sets out the scheduling and structural framework for the oral hearing, dividing it into a first day dedicated to technical issues (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and infringement by standard) and a second day addressing FRAND-related matters, including the FRAND counterclaim.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning the preparation and structuring of the oral hearing in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The plaintiff, Panasonic Holdings Corporation, sues several Xiaomi entities and other defendants. The presiding judge coordinated the hearing date and provided detailed instructions on the structure of the proceedings, with the first day dedicated to technical aspects (uniform interpretation of the patent, validity, and standard-essential infringement) and the second day to FRAND-related issues.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) against ITCiCo Spain S.L. regarding European Patent EP 2 796 333, which relates to a graded control signal system for warning vehicle users of speeding conditions. The claimant sought a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure after the defendant failed to submit any request or defense. The court examined the conditions for issuing a default decision, considering the requirements of Rule 355 and the discretionary assessment under Rule 335.
ICPillar LLC v.SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Germany GmbH, Apical Limited, Arm Sweden AB, ARM Limited
ICPillar LLC appealed a Court of First Instance order requiring it to provide security for costs (EUR 400,000) in its patent infringement action against ARM entities before the Paris Local Division. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the Insurance Policy submitted for the first time on appeal would be disregarded under R.222.2 RoP, and that a bank guarantee from a US-licensed bank did not constitute adequate security under R.158 RoP.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Microsoft Corporation for review and setting aside of an order restricting access to documents deemed business secrets in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The respondent, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, had successfully obtained a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, limiting access to certain Microsoft attorneys and directors. Microsoft filed alternative requests including dismissal of the Rule 262A application, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on representative independence requirements, amendment of the access list, and leave to appeal. The available text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the panel's full reasoning or operative ruling.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Carl Batt, an expert for Lawrence Livermore, submits a declaration defending the RE43,365 patent against Bio‑Rad’s IPR. He contends that the cited prior art (Ismagilov, Quake, Holliger, SchneegaB, etc.) does not anticipate or render the claims obvious. The Board has already instituted the proceeding.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The USPTO denied director review requests for three IPRs, including Western Digital's data‑storage patent, leaving the institution decisions intact.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
ETN Capital and FBA Operating Co. filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate it from the IPR record.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. seeks reversal of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated claims of its presentation‑dongle patent. The Patent Owner argues the Board improperly discounted a multi‑patent Crestron license and other commercial‑success evidence, misapplying Ancora precedent. A petition for Director Review has been filed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries and Rotolight Limited have jointly filed a motion to terminate IPR2024-01423 after reaching a settlement. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination when parties settle.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. filed a motion to seal portions of its Request for Director Review in IPR2024-01439, asserting that the material contains highly confidential licensing and financial information. The Board must decide whether the confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to a complete record.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital’s IPR against a magnetic tunnel junction patent was instituted, but the patent owner seeks Director review to vacate the institution, arguing that piecemeal review of one of nine related patents is inefficient and contrary to AIA policy.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital filed an authorized response opposing IP Bridge’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution of IPR2024-01447. The company contends the request lacks any showing of error or abuse of discretion and should be denied.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Barco N.V. has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Yealink’s challenge to U.S. Patent 11,422,951. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response filed within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the documents from the public patent file.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The IPR concerning patent 10,890,925 was terminated after the parties reached a settlement. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be treated as confidential business information.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging and Rotolight settled their dispute over four USPTO patents, leading the Board to terminate four IPRs before any merits were decided and to keep the settlement confidential.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks and Croga Innovations filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory confidentiality protections and seeking to separate the document from the IPR record.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 6,856,701 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and partially approved confidentiality for the settlement documents.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 6,856,701 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over patent 6,856,701 and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, moving to terminate the proceeding.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio‑Rad has filed an IPR petition challenging Caltech’s ’921 patent covering multiplex PCR assays, asserting that the claims are fully anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Larson, Saxonov, and Silverbrook.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Rotolight's U.S. Patent 10,197,257, arguing anticipation by Pohlert and obviousness over Mueller and Reichow. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the trial.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Rotolight’s U.S. Patent 10,845,044 covering customizable lighting effects, arguing the claims are obvious or anticipated by prior art such as Mueller, Edwards, and Astera.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging files an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Rotolight’s lighting‑control patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Mueller, Edwards, and Astera references. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Palo Alto Networks petitions the PTAB to invalidate Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references covering content isolation and proxy authentication for collaboration software.
Aputure Imaging Industries Co., Ltd. v.--
Aputure Imaging Industries has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 22 claims of Rotolight's 2019 lighting system patent, arguing obviousness over Mueller, Showline, and Choong references and opposing discretionary denial.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories successfully secured the institution of its IPR against California Institute of Technology's patent, challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that Bio-Rad demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding Claim 1 over Larson.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. failed its IPR challenge against a patent owned by Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 regarding Magnetic Tunnel Junctions (MTJ). The PTAB denied the petition on obviousness grounds (103), finding that the petitioner could not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Western Digital Technologies against Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all challenged claims.
ETN CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a BEECH LANE v.FBA Operating Co.
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds (Grounds 1-6). The patent, related to vehicle leveling systems using smart devices, was deemed potentially invalid based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) when combining prior art references like Thorpe and Clark.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to challenge several claims of Barco's patent (11258676) based on obviousness over prior art references Ono and Deforche. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability for Claim 1.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
Yealink successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Barco N.V., challenging nine claims of patent 10762002 based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail, citing combinations of prior art references like Kaplan and Ahmed to establish unpatentability.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim. The Board rejected various obviousness grounds (103) because UiPath relied on conclusory arguments without sufficient factual motivation for combining prior art references.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-19) of the '921 patent. The Board rejected arguments based on obviousness and novelty, particularly concerning multi-occupancy droplet detection in multiplexed biochemical assays.
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
The PTAB found claims 1 and 2 unpatentable over the combination of Bowen and Parkin's prior art references. The Board concluded that combining these references taught all elements of the challenged claims, including a rationale for using amorphous, annealed CoFeB electrodes to achieve high TMR. Claims 3 and 4 were not found unpatentable.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103), primarily through combinations of prior art references like Ono, Deforche, Uchida, and Grimshaw. The Board concluded that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply known techniques to improve the wireless connection modules described in the patent.
Yealink (USA) Network Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Barco N.V.
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining references like Kaplan, Ahmed, and Deforche teaches all claimed features in the audio/video conferencing technology.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED v.EPO
Qualcomm Incorporated filed an application with the Court of First Instance of the UPC Paris Central Division seeking annulment of a decision of the European Patent Office (EPO) dated 10 July 2024, made in carrying out tasks under Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012. The Court forwarded the application for interlocutory revision to the EPO, which subsequently rectified the contested decision in accordance with the Claimant's request. As the Claimant did not identify any particular circumstances justifying reimbursement, the Court closed the case without prior consultation of the parties.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued several Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 B1, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The dispute concerned the interpretation of claim 20 of the patent and whether the Belkin defendants' activities constituted patent infringement. The Local Chamber Munich issued its main decision on 13 September 2024, addressing issues including claim construction, the definition of an infringer, and the possibility of injunctions against company officers as intermediaries.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The court decided, pursuant to Article 33(3)(a) of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Grundfos Holding A/S against Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. and the defendant's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The decision was made before the close of the written procedure, with the consent of both parties, in order to allow early assignment of the technically qualified judge and to avoid scheduling delays.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
R‑Pac International seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR challenging Adasa’s RFID tag patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused discretion by refusing a preliminary reply and misapplying prior‑art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.--
Apple’s petition to review Proxsense’s U.S. Patent 8,646,042 was instituted, and the Board approved Apple’s motion to join the parallel Google IPR. The decision rests on multiple prior‑art combinations showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Court decision.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
Adasa’s counsel rebuts r‑pac’s request for a Director Review, asserting the petition failed to satisfy §325(d) requirements and that the cited prior art was already considered. The Board’s denial of institution is defended as proper and non‑abusive.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB Director acknowledged receipt of r-pac International Corp’s request for Director Review in IPR2024-01416 concerning Adasa Inc’s patent 9,798,967. The patent owner may file a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
r-pac International Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Adasa’s RFID patent, arguing obviousness over RFID for Dummies, the Traub patent, and EPC tag standards. The petition stresses that the prior art combination was never before considered by the USPTO, and discretionary factors favor institution.
Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. v.Converter Manufacturing LLC
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Ningbo Linhua Plastic Co., Ltd. against Converter Manufacturing LLC's patent, finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over prior art references like Portelli and Meadors.
r-pac International Corporation v.Adasa Inc
The PTAB denied R-pac International Corporation's IPR challenge against Adasa Inc.'s RFID patent, finding that the prior art presented was cumulative to references already before the Office. The denial was based on Petitioner failing to show material Examiner error under Section 325(d).
Apple Inc. v.--
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable in this final IPR decision. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over prior art references (Buer, Dua, Kotola) for the hybrid device technology.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of prior art references Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding § 112(f) limitations, confirming that key terms like 'PDK' and 'RDC' convey definite structure to a POSITA.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd v.Voiceage Evs Llc
The petitioners sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN405869 before the Delhi High Court. The court granted notice and allowed various interim applications, including directions for respondents to file prosecution records and granting extensions of time for both parties.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a patent infringement suit against Sanofi Healthcare India Private Limited concerning the product Shan6, which allegedly infringes IN 351. The parties reached an amicable resolution and settled the dispute before the Delhi High Court.
Axcess Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Axcess Limited appealed the Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 2427/DELNP/2011), which covered bile acids and biguanides as protease inhibitors for gut peptides. The Controller had rejected the application under Section 59(1) of the Patent Act, arguing that the amendments exceeded the original scope. However, the Delhi High Court found that a detailed examination of the complete specification supported the amended claims regarding composition as a product. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries v.M/S. Lakshmi Venkateshwar Saroja Hangaraki Rice Industries
The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries, quashing an earlier order that had dismissed their application for staying civil suit proceedings. The petitioners sought to halt the ongoing litigation (O.S.No.3/2012) while their trademark rectification application was pending before the Madras High Court. The court ruled that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act mandates a stay on civil proceedings when a rectification application is pending, thereby granting relief and directing the petitioners to expedite the process.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Petitioner seeks to sustain PTAB institution of an IPR over Stratasys’s 3D‑printer patent, arguing the Board correctly applied Fintiv factors and its broad stipulation blocks discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Feit Electric’s request for review of the Board’s order to deny its motion to terminate IPR2025-00260, finding the request improper under the regulations.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its 3D‑printing patent, arguing the panel misapplied the Fintiv factors and over‑relied on a stipulation. The petition highlights the actual trial date, discovery investment, and identical parties as reasons for discretionary denial.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Feit Electric’s 8604678 LED patent, covering claims 1 and 11‑14, and ordered consolidation with a related IPR. Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate Stratasys' 3D‑printer heated‑bed patent, asserting that all 15 claims are obvious over a combination of existing 3D‑printing references.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1 and 11‑14 of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing they are obvious over several LED‑related publications. The petition seeks institution of inter‑partes review.
ELONG INTERNATIONAL USA INC. et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Elong International and Xiamen Longstar have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Feit Electric’s white‑light LED patent, arguing the claims are obvious over several LED‑lighting references. The petition cites Basin‑2007, Krummacher, Hussell and others as prior art.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
Sanjeev Gupta v.Aman Gupta Trading As M/S Delhi Electricals Trading Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple petitions concerning trademark disputes between family members. The cases involved rectification requests challenging the registration of marks like 'USHA' and a suit seeking injunction against alleged infringement using the mark 'ANUSHA'. Given the familial nature of the dispute, the court opted not to proceed with immediate litigation. Instead, the parties were referred to Pre-Institution Mediation to explore an amicable resolution. This order highlights the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex family IP disputes.
M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp Through Its Partner Mr. Bharat Khubchandani v.Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized an amicable settlement between M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp (Plaintiff) and Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises (Defendant). The parties agreed that the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's well-known trademarks (TAKAI / HAK), acknowledged their rights, and committed to ceasing all use of similar marks. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included the cancellation of the infringing trademark and a payment of liquidated damages.
Primetals TechnologiesAustria GMBH v.Danieli &c. spa Danieli Automation spa
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex-parte application for preserving evidence and inspection against Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant alleged that during a September 2023 visit to its customer Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, it discovered a driver for a steel strip coiler manufactured by the Danieli group that appeared to reproduce the teachings of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 of EP977. The applicant sought an order for inspection of the defendants' premises to collect and preserve technical, advertising, and commercial documentation relating to the allegedly infringing drivers.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the correction of party designation in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The plaintiff had originally named a non-existent entity 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as the fifth defendant, which defendants 1-4 argued was not a party-capable entity under Dutch law. The court addressed whether the plaintiff could correct the party designation to identify the correct defendant, Flextronics International Europe B.V., by way of analogous application of Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure.
Manish Kumar Jain & Another v.Tushar Saraf & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging a prior interim trademark injunction. The court found that while the initial stay was granted based on prima facie evidence, further material had become available to both parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the original interim order restraining the appellants from using the marks 'JJ DELUX' and related forms was extended until September 20, 2024, allowing for a comprehensive review by the trial judge.
Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. v.Mumtaz Ahmed & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal or rectification of the registered trademark 'GMW' (No. 1978669) from the Register, alleging that it is deceptively and confusingly similar to their own mark. The court accepted notice and directed that respondent no. 1 be served with notice, allowing them four weeks to file a reply. This order sets the stage for further litigation on trademark infringement and rectification grounds.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP petitions PTAB to invalidate Slick Slide's low‑friction slide patent, asserting obviousness over Phillips, Fallgatter, and a nylon‑mesh product, plus lack of enablement and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution and a finding that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Paragon Cable India & Anr. v.Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Paragon Cable India against Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The core dispute involved the infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ELEKTRON'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to expeditiously transfer the rights of the 'ELEKTRON' mark into the name of the plaintiffs, formalizing the assignment made by the defendants.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
The Delhi High Court has initiated proceedings in the suit concerning the alleged infringement of the 'HAVELLS' trademark. The court allowed several procedural applications filed by Havells India Limited, granting exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon the defendants. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, while also addressing an application for interim relief based on the plaintiff's well-known mark status.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1 concerning an oral cleaning system with motivational feedback for electric toothbrush users, filed an application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company selling 'Oclean' brand electric toothbrushes. The dispute concerned the alleged infringement by Philips of the 'X Ultra S' and 'X Pro Digital' toothbrush models being exhibited at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on September 9, 2024, addressing the application for interim injunctive relief.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s network‑stack API patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial factors and erred on claim construction. A termination would end the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all seven claims of The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over prior‑art jump‑starter and USB‑charging references. The decision follows a petition by Deltran USA LLC asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review, vacating the Board's decision and favoring Headwater Research LLC over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. based on procedural timing factors.