Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7001–7100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Headwater, finding a reasonable likelihood that the challenged wireless device claims are unpatentable over Bennett and Vadde.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Dolby International AB's audio signal coding patents was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Roku failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against The Noco Company's patent (11667203) covering jump start/battery charging systems. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite the Patent Owner's counterarguments regarding technical limitations.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable over various prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining Richardson's jump starter apparatus with Zhao's USB step-up charging technology, and through other combinations involving Epower/Krieger references.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex parte injunction in favor of Louis Vuitton Malletier against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff, a well-known luxury brand, had made out a prima facie case for infringement of its registered trademark 'LV' and associated copyrights. This interim order immediately restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products featuring marks identical or deceptively similar to LV, pending further proceedings.
Headout Inc. v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors.
Headout Inc. successfully secured an interim injunction against the defendants in the Delhi High Court, addressing claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of confusingly similar marks related to travel services. Furthermore, specific mandatory directions were issued compelling the defendants to immediately take down, block, and suspend all infringing websites, domain names, and social media profiles.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Terre Primitive & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by the Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation (AMUL) against Terre Primitive. The court found that the defendant's use of 'Amuleti' was identical and deceptively similar to AMUL's well-known mark, leading to potential consumer confusion. Consequently, the court granted interim relief, directing the defendant to cease using the infringing marks, take down products from their website, surrender materials for destruction, and block specific social media URLs.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications’ IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies’ 9,287,982 patent was deemed insufficient. The Patent Owner’s response argues the petitioner ignored the limiting preamble and failed to provide particularized obviousness arguments.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Declaration of Kerry Litvin submitted by Iarnach Technologies in response to Charter Communications' IPR petition.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Stellar, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s institution of several IPRs against Motorola Solutions, alleging misapplication of the Fintiv discretionary factors. The petition seeks reversal of the institution decisions under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related entities filed an unopposed motion to withdraw their IPR petition after reaching a settlement with Intercurrency Software, arguing that the case should be dismissed before any merits are decided.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending its IPRs on body‑worn and in‑car camera patents, arguing that the PTAB must honor prior guidance that bars discretionary denial when a Sotera stipulation exists. The petitioner stresses national‑security stakes and the extensive resources invested in challenging all 160 claims.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB sent an email notifying the parties that the patent owner has filed Director Review requests for IPR2024‑01284, ‑01285, ‑01313 and ‑01314. The petitioner may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,986,585 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy supports termination after settlement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing filed a joint request with the PTAB to have their settlement materials treated as business‑confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The request seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties showing good cause.
Bitsgap Holding OU et al. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
Bitsgap Holding and related crypto trading entities settled their IPR disputes with Intercurrency Software. The Board granted a motion to withdraw the petitions and terminated the proceedings, treating the settlement as confidential.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications' IPR petition against Iarnach Technologies' DOCSIS auto‑configuration patent is challenged by the patent owner, who argues the petitioner's reply adds new, undisclosed arguments, violating the IPR rules. The patent owner seeks dismissal of the new arguments and confirmation of the patent's validity.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,219,661 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01267 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, treating the settlement as confidential and ending the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung and Cerence have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,026,428 and jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding while requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,026,428 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that termination aligns with public policy and resource efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,111,608. The Board terminated the proceeding without deciding the merits, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and patent owner K. Mizra filed a joint request to dismiss their IPR and keep the dismissal agreement confidential. The Board was asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential information under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS settled their inter partes review disputes over patent 10,986,585, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings before trial. The settlement documents were ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Omachron’s hand‑vacuum patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition emphasizes that the claimed features are well‑known and combinable.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 13 claims of U.S. Patent 8,942,378, which covers multicast encryption in passive optical networks. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior art including Murakami, RFC 1112, RFC 4601, and the Yen patent application, and challenges discretionary denial arguments.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. challenges K. Mizra LLC's '608 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding DDR DRAM memory controllers and timing calibration. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Johnson, Stubbs, Moss, and Liou.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Charter Communications filed an IPR petition challenging 20 claims of Touchstream Technologies' '751 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combinations of prior art references (Danciu/Mahajan/Calvert and Aldrey/Mahajan) teach all elements of the claimed media playback features. This challenges the validity of key patents in the wireless communications space.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB instituted the IPR for Charter Communications against Iarnach Technologies, finding sufficient evidence that claims of Patent No. 9287982 are obvious over various prior art references (Bernstein, Tsuge, MEF 6.1). The Board addressed numerous claim construction issues, confirming some preambles were limiting while others were not.
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications, Inc. failed to invalidate 13 claims covering Passive Optical Networks (PON) and multicast encryption technologies before the PTAB. The Board denied institution based on insufficient evidence showing obviousness over prior art including RFCs and Murakami.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director of the USPTO denied institution for several IPRs involving Motorola and Stellar, vacating prior Board decisions. The denial was based on changes in circumstances regarding related proceedings and the applicability of new guidance.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB for institution of IPR against Stellar, LLC's patent (8310540), challenging all 19 claims based on obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that combining prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore would render the claimed features unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
Aarke AB v.Respondent
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
1. Art. 25 UPCA constitutes uniform substantive law and Art. 62 (1) UPCA uniform procedural law, which takes precedence over national patent laws and whose content is to be inter- preted independently by the Court. 2. A situation of imminent infringement may be characterised by certain circumstances which suggest that the infringement has not yet occurred, but that the potential infringer has al- ready set the stage for it to occur. The infringement is only a matter of starting the action
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Gmbh v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.1. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH, 2. S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The applicant, Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG, sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International to prevent the offering, distribution, and storage of an optical fiber for treating venous diseases ('Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber'), alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1. The Local Chamber of Düsseldorf rejected the application for interim measures without an oral hearing, finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of provisional measures. The court held that the applicant had not adequately shown why its legal protection诉求 could not be sufficiently addressed through main proceedings.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This is an appeal order concerning the referral of an infringement action from the Local Chamber Mannheim to the Central Division Paris. Advanced Bionics sought to have the infringement case transferred to the Central Division to be heard together with a nullity action they had filed against the same patent (EP 4074373). The Court of Appeal held that a connection for related cases under Rule 340 of the Rules of Procedure cannot result in a case being referred to another chamber outside the possibilities provided by Article 33 UPCA, and that Article 33 UPCA does not permit the referral of an infringement action from a local chamber to the central chamber without the parties' consent.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed against the rejection of its patent by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Design. The appellant argued that the rejection, which relied upon Section 3(d) of The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019, was incorrect. The Court directed both parties to file replies and rejoinders.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l v.Insulet Corporation
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_400/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 04/09/2024 Order no. ORD_45723/2024 APPLICANT 1) A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Applicant) - Via Dei Sette Santi 3 - 50131 - Florence – IT Represented
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
Sanjay Kumar v.Rattan Lal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Kumar, who holds the registered trademark 'CHAND' for mustard oil. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'R.L. CHAND' on identical products and packaging, causing potential confusion among consumers. This preliminary order restrains the defendants from continuing to use the infringing mark until the full trial.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Motor And General Finance Limited v.A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of The Motor And General Finance Limited against A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MGF INDIA' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established trademark 'MGF'. Given the prima facie case for infringement and the risk of irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
M.K. Srinivasan And Another v.Chemsol India And Another
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M.K. Srinivasan And Another against Chemsol India And Another, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess significant goodwill associated with their 'TAURUS' trademarks used for testing and measurement instruments. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care have settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites a confidential settlement agreement and the lack of any Board decision on the merits.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response argues that Juniper’s obviousness grounds fail because the cited references do not teach a “home gateway” and Li‑2 is not a printed publication, urging the PTAB to deny institution of the IPR.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper seeks to invalidate Monarch’s ’845 patent covering IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, arguing the claims are obvious over Ananda, Wetterwald, and RFC4380 and requesting the PTAB to institute an IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications’ 8,631,450 patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied obviousness law by demanding a specific benefit, contrary to precedent, and seeks reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics, its U.S. affiliate and Harman reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,298,056 covering continuous glucose monitoring technology. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted termination without a final written decision.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s infringement suit against Cisco over Patent 8,451,845 was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, ending the dispute before the PTAB could institute an IPR.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Dish Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' broadband patent. The denial leaves the original institution decision intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,054 owned by InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (Sections 102/103). The petitioner argues that the patent lacks written description support for its method using Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi transfer, asserting prior art reference Forutanpour anticipates or renders the claims obvious.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims 1, 13, and 29 of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent (US 11298056). The challenger asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Patel-2009 and Paradigm® REAL-Time. This petition also argues against discretionary denial, asserting the arguments are new and diligent.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the challenger failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The challenge related to common bit-loading methods in broadband coaxial networks.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation successfully challenged InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc.'s patent claims in a PTAB decision. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all asserted grounds regarding anticipation and obviousness. This institution decision keeps the dispute alive for further review.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Ms. Bhupinder Mehta v.Sh Pradeep Bareja & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings seeking the rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (Application No. 5149074) in Class-11. The petitioner alleged that the respondent dishonestly adopted a deceptively similar mark, which was identical to her prior registered trademark. While some procedural applications were disposed of, the court formally issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies, moving the core dispute forward.
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
Hand Held Products argues that TransCore's IPR petition fails because the cited Katz reference is not a printed publication and the petitioner’s reliance on Tolonen and Ishizu lacks the required particularity. The owner seeks denial of institution and invokes §325(d).
TransCore LP v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a settlement that resolved all disputes over three patents. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPRs, and the Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review disputes over U.S. Patent 9,775,774, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests the USPTO Director to vacate the institution of an IPR against its dermatology device patent after the ITC upheld the patent’s validity, arguing the Board abused discretion and that the Fintiv factors favor denial.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a settlement‑based termination for Jeisys Medical in three IPRs while allowing the proceedings to continue for EndyMed. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.