Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7201–7300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) filed a suit against Massey Ferguson Corp. (MFC) seeking declarations regarding trademark abandonment and injunctive relief concerning their respective trademarks. The original Commercial Court returned the plaint, directing TAFE to file it in the Commercial Division of the High Court, citing maintainability issues. TAFE appealed this order, arguing for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that allowing such suits in the Commercial Court could lead to forum shopping and undermine the philosophy of the Commercial Courts Act.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company
YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Punjabi
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 253/2024) between Wow Momo Foods Private Limited and Wow Punjabi. The case, which sought permanent injunctions against passing off and unfair trade practices, was settled amicably by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of Wow Momo, based on the settlement terms, wherein Wow Punjabi acknowledged Wow Momo's exclusive ownership of the 'WOW' trademark and agreed to cease all use of similar marks.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns a request by Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, UEFA, and Kinexon GmbH for security for costs of the appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. before the Court of Appeal. Ballinno had previously been ordered by the Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) to provide €56,000 in security for costs and had its application for provisional measures dismissed. The appeal concerns both the security order and the main order dismissing the provisional measures application. The matter relates to European Patent EP 1 944 067.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, titled 'Monitoring circuit for on-board power supply and power supply control.' The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, alleged that the defendants, Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, infringed the patent through the production and sale of Tesla vehicles manufactured at the Grünheide facility near Berlin. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued its decision on August 26, 2024, addressing procedural matters regarding CMS workflow usage and the scope of partial revocation under the applicable procedural rules.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13:35:50 +02'00' Peter Juul Agergaa rd Digitalt signeret af Peter Juul Agergaard Dato: 2024.08.26 13
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-01281. Cisco must respond within five business days, limited to 15 pages and without new evidence.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny Lionra Technologies’ request for review of the Board’s decision that all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,738,471 are unpatentable. Cisco argues the Board correctly applied Axonics precedent and that the prior art teaches the disputed limitation.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Cambridge Enterprise has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-01235. Pascal Technologies may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence. The Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited, along with two universities, settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,230,656. The Board terminated the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 10,572,896, alleging obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and requests institution of the review.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Savant Technologies (GE Lighting) petitions the PTAB to institute IPR on Feit Electric’s 8,604,678 patent, asserting that its claims on white‑light LED devices with TiO₂ diffusing layers are obvious over several pre‑AIA references.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1, 12, and 25‑26 of Saris’s ’394 bicycle‑trainer patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Zwinkels and obvious over Zwinkels alone or combined with Papadopoulos. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Lionra Technologies' U.S. Patent 7,738,471 covering high‑speed packet processing. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple pre‑AIA references and argues that discretionary denial is improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks an IPR to invalidate 13 claims of a media‑measurement patent owned by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, arguing obviousness over Steuer and Neumeier references and lack of written‑description support for video‑data features.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung seeks IPR review of U.S. Patent 10,719,848 covering media‑measurement methods, arguing all 15 claims are obvious over prior art and lack written‑description support for video‑data features.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies has initiated an IPR challenging the patentability of barocaloric cooling and heating agents held by Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Xie, Mañosa, and Patel.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.'s attempt to invalidate Anonymous Media Research Holdings' content identification patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the patent description sufficiently broad to cover video data samples, defeating the obviousness challenge over prior art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Lionra Technologies regarding patent 7,738,471, challenging claims related to high-speed packet header processing.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the '656 patent, challenging claims related to barocaloric cooling agents. The Board adopted a broad interpretation of 'organic material,' supporting the Petitioner's argument that the claimed invention is unpatentable over prior art references like Mañosa and Patel.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The PTAB found the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because they were obvious in light of prior art references (Cornett, Paatela, Nelson, Russell). The Board adopted a construction of 'concurrently writing' that aligned with both parties and district court precedent. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of disclosures taught all limitations of the claims for high-speed packet processing.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP3065184 (relating to trench processes and structures for back side contact solar cells) applied under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance was required to assess the admissibility of the application and the merits of the language change request. The order addressed both procedural admissibility of the English-language submission and the substantive balancing of interests between the parties regarding the language of proceedings.
Digital River Ireland Ltd., Arvato Netherlands B.V., ASUSTek Computer Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns Ericsson's application to amend its claims in preliminary injunction proceedings against ASUSTek, Arvato Netherlands, and Digital River Ireland regarding European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1. The amendment unconditionally limited the original claims, particularly recharacterizing Defendant Arvato from a direct infringer under Article 25(a) UPCA to an intermediary under Article 62(1) UPCA. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Lisbon Local Division) granted the amendment under Rule 263.3 RoP, as the defendants did not oppose the changes and the amendments narrowed the scope of the original claims.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok seeks Director review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against a media‑feed aggregation patent, alleging the board’s reasoning conflicts with earlier instituted petitions and misinterprets the Whitehead prior art.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports opposes SportsCastr’s request for Director Review, contending the Board properly analyzed the webserver limitation and that PANDA’s arguments were waived. The Board’s decision should stand and the request be denied.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok’s request for a Director Review of the USPTO’s decision to deny institution of its IPR against NTECH Properties was denied. The Board affirmed the original institution denial, leaving the patent challenge unresolved.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB Director has issued a Director Review request for IPR2024-01310. Genius Sports Ltd. must submit a concise response within five business days, and no new evidence may be introduced.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
An email from the PTAB Director informs TikTok and NTECH Properties that Director Review requests for IPR2024-01341 and IPR2024-01343 have been received, setting a five‑business‑day deadline for a brief response and prohibiting new evidence.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate NTECH's U.S. Patent 9,923,947 covering custom media programming. The petition relies on three § 103 obviousness grounds using Whitehead, Marcus ’904, and Cristofalo references. The Board is asked to institute the review.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition challenging all 15 claims of SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 11,039,218, arguing they are obvious over Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog. The petitioner seeks institution and argues the Board should not deny discretionally.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
Alamar Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑20 of Olink's 7,883,848 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior art combinations such as Kanan/Neri and Baez/Landegren. The petitioner asserts the examiner omitted critical references and that no discretionary factors justify denial.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.NTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok's IPR petition against NTECH Properties was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that Petitioner could not adequately teach or suggest key limitations from the cited prior art (Marcus156 and Ferman).
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision was granted, finding sufficient rationale for the Petitioner to combine teachings from prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board specifically found that combining Ellis's content source with Spivey’s live data server devices would improve latency in real-time event delivery.
UiPath, Inc. v.Rule 14 LLC
UiPath's IPR challenge against Rule 14 LLC was denied by the PTAB, as the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments because UiPath relied on conclusory assertions regarding motivation-to-combine rather than factual support.
Alamar Biosciences, Inc. v.Olink Proteomics AB et al.
The petitioner failed to prove the obviousness of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 7883848 in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'selecting all cis-reactive cells exhibiting the detectable trace,' defining it as selecting associations of at least two interactor moieties joined by an associated oligonucleotide that exhibit the detectable trace.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 15 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining Ellis and Spivey taught an 'event socket' to improve latency, while other grounds were also met by the combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog.
Astellas v.Helios, Riken, Osaka
The Court of First Instance, Central Division (Section Munich), issued an Order regarding an application by Mathys & Squire LLP for access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP3056563. The underlying revocation action had been terminated by settlement on 23 July 2024. The Court held that, following termination of proceedings by settlement, public access to written pleadings and evidence should normally be granted, subject to redaction of personal data and confidential information.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an applicant's request for review of the Registrar's decision rejecting his application for registration in the list of representatives before the UPC. The applicant claimed to meet the qualification requirements under Article 48(2) of the UPC Agreement, including passing the European qualifying examination and the German patent attorney examination, and argued that his 'Munich Year' training (1997-1998) was equivalent to the 'Law for Patent Attorneys' course at Hagen distance university referenced in Rule 12.1(a)(ii) EPLC Rules. The Registrar had rejected the application, finding that only courses and certificates explicitly listed in Rule 12.1(a) EPLC Rules could be recognized as qualifying credentials.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before any merits were decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) to end the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,776,120 and jointly request the Board to terminate the proceeding while keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu filed an authorized response opposing the patent owner’s request to deny institution of an IPR covering U.S. Patent 11,463,768. The Board applied Fintiv factors and found no basis to block institution, keeping the challenge alive.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu’s parallel IPR petitions against Piranha Media’s streaming‑technology patent were instituted despite a district court finding all claims invalid under §101. The patent owner seeks Director Review, arguing the panel should have denied institution under Fintiv guidance and the Trial Practice Guide.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against Piranha Media’s eSports platform patent, citing the patent’s prior invalidation in district court. The Board exercised its §314(a) discretion, concluding that proceeding would be inefficient.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied Hulu’s petition to institute an IPR against a peer‑to‑peer gaming patent, finding the petition failed the compelling‑merits test. The Board concluded the cited prior art did not teach key claim limitations, resulting in a discretionary denial under § 314(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,776,120 covering a cyclonic vacuum cleaner with a moveable divider plate. The petition alleges lack of novelty and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. Discretionary factors are cited to favor institution.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition against Proxense’s ’960 patent, seeking to invalidate all 20 claims on the basis of obviousness over Giobbi, Dua and Broadcom references, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate SportsCastr’s U.S. Patent 10,425,697 covering live‑sports video and data streaming. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over prior art references Ellis, Spivey and Herzog and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel claims 1‑9.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Proxense’s ’289 patent covering hybrid devices with secure memory and proximity authentication, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent on obviousness grounds, relying on the Ludtke and Kon references. The petition argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted and requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’042 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is not justified.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu challenges Piranha Media Distribution’s patent via Inter Partes Review (IPR), arguing that combining prior art references Eldering-I and Eldering-II renders the claims obvious under 103. The petitioner asserts that user actions like skipping ads constitute a change in viewing parameters, thereby triggering adaptive ad rescheduling taught by the cited prior art.
Google LLC v.--
Google LLC's attempt to challenge patent 9,679,289 B1 was denied by the PTAB because a prior inter partes review (IPR) of the same patent had already been instituted.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against SportsCastr Inc. d/b/a PANDA Interactive regarding live event broadcasting claims. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments that the claimed technology is obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Ellis and Spivey. This sets the stage for a full trial on unpatentability grounds.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for Genius Sports Ltd.'s claims against SportsCastr Inc. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog) taught or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependents based on the preliminary record. This sets a significant hurdle for SportsCastr's patent validity in digital media streaming technology.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
Genius Sports Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute proceedings against SportsCastr Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The Board found that claims 1-9 were obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically demonstrating how known techniques could reduce data latency in live sports content delivery.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board relied heavily on the combination of Ellis and Spivey to establish obviousness for Claim 1, particularly regarding low-latency data delivery via uniquely addressable event sockets.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 unpatentable over a combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, concluding that the claimed live video streaming system was obvious to a POSA. The Board specifically held that Spivey's topic queues satisfy the definition of an 'event socket.'
House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors. v.House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, House Of Diagnostics LLP, against House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case of idea infringement, noting that both parties operate in the highly similar field of diagnostic services and their marks are glaringly similar. The defendant was restrained from using 'House of Pathology' in connection with its diagnostic activities, pending further consideration of the main suit.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Kalra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.
Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)
In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
M/S Shree Vallabh Metals v.Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application for discretionary review with the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris) dated 2 July 2024, which had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed whether such an order denying a Rule 361 request is admissible for appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, and whether it qualifies as a case management order requiring issuance by a panel. The standing judge issued the order addressing these procedural questions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/08/2024 DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - Harris County - US Rep
Ballinno B.V. v.Respondent
Ballinno B.V. requested that the Central Division stay revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of its provisional measures application by the Local Division Hamburg. The court denied the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that the proceedings must be conducted to allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request to Biofrontera in IPR2024-01312, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence. The petitioner must respond within five business days.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera's IPR challenge against Sun Pharmaceutical regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Lundahl and Larsen, focusing on combining prior art elements for flexible device design.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Archidply Industries Limited v.Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archidply Industries Limited against Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited. While granting minor procedural exemptions and directing the transfer of court fees, the Court primarily focused on moving the main dispute forward. The matter was formally registered as a suit for infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and subsequently referred to the High Court's Mediation Centre to explore an out-of-court settlement.
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.