Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7401–7500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/S Krbl Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Krbl Limited to file amendments and introduce crucial subsequent documentation in its ongoing suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff successfully sought to place on record the registration certificate, legal proceedings, and official orders confirming 'INDIA GATE' as a well-known trademark. This procedural order allows the case to proceed with updated evidence relevant to the core dispute.
Dunar Foods Limited v.Ankit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.
Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim and ordered the trial to proceed.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 catheter‑hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references. The petition argues the preamble term “aspiration” is non‑limiting and requests the Board to institute the review.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla successfully challenged Charge Fusion Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, rendering numerous independent and dependent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This outcome significantly weakens the asserted patent portfolio for Charge Fusion.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The Board found that the claims were obvious over prior art references by combining known features to achieve a predictable result. Despite initial disputes over claim construction, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation for combining specific prior art elements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to overturn a Director’s discretionary denial that left Mullen Industries’ 19‑claim patent alive. The petition argues misapplication of Fintiv factors, failure to honor a Sotera stipulation, and retroactive rescission of guidance.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ patent was denied. The Patent Owner’s response emphasized the Director’s discretionary authority, the parallel district‑court trial, and weak petition merits.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Mullen Industries’ wireless‑device patent. Mullen has filed a Director Review request arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and should deny institution under §314(a). The outcome of the review is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Netlist seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its 11,386,024 patent, arguing Samsung’s record is overly voluminous and its six grounds lack particularity. The petition urges denial of institution and referral to district court.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics' IPR against Netlist’s 8,489,837 B1 patent succeeded, finding claims 1‑3,5,6 unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art references LeClerg, Lee, and Kim. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions and rejected the patent owner’s arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB found all 29 claims of Netlist's ’623 memory module patent unpatentable, deeming them obvious over a combination of prior art references including Hazelzet, Buchmann, and Talbot. Samsung, as petitioner, secured a complete cancellation of the patent claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Mullen Industries requested Director Review of multiple IPRs against Google. The PTAB limited Google’s reply to five pages and barred new evidence, giving a five‑business‑day deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for all 24 claims. The Board declined to exercise discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung files an authorized response opposing Netlist’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision on U.S. Patent 11,386,024, arguing procedural waivers and public accessibility of the JEDEC proposal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged Netlist’s 9,858,218 patent covering memory‑module handshaking. The PTAB found all 22 claims obvious over prior‑art combinations of Hazelzet and Buchmann. The decision also rejected the parties’ proposed claim constructions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in Netlist’s memory‑module patent case, leaving the institution in place.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and Optimum Imaging Technologies have reached a settlement-in-principle in their IPR dispute, requesting a 60‑day stay to finalize dismissal. The parties will file a stipulation of dismissal within two months.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB sent an email notifying Samsung and Netlist of Director Review requests for IPR2025-00001 and IPR2025-00002, limiting the petitioner’s response to five pages and prohibiting new evidence. The director will decide whether to grant the review.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The petitioners and Optimum Imaging Technologies have settled all disputes related to U.S. Patent 10,877,266. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, making termination appropriate.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have agreed to settle their patent dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, planning to dismiss the case after a 45‑day stay.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Fujifilm and other petitioners settled their IPR disputes with Optimum Imaging Technologies. The Board terminated the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreements to remain confidential.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC and Olympus Corporation have reached a settlement-in-principle in a Texas district court case, planning to file a stipulation of dismissal and requesting a 45‑day stay of deadlines.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in a Texas district court case, planning to dismiss the lawsuit after a 45‑day stay. The agreement ends the dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 20 claims of Netlist’s 11,386,024 patent covering DDR3 memory‑module training. The petition relies on prior art combinations of Hazelzet, JEDEC, Buchmann, Wang and Kim, and cites earlier PTAB decisions that cancelled similar claims. It requests that the Board institute a trial.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 19 claims of Mullen Industries' location‑sharing patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting no discretionary denial grounds.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
FUJIFILM and a coalition of camera makers have filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Optimum Imaging’s ’266 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple pre‑2005 camera‑technology patents. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of IPR for Mullen Industries against Google LLC et al., vacating the prior decision. The denial was based on a holistic Fintiv analysis where procedural factors outweighed the merits.
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
AGFA NV v.Gucci Sweden AB, Gucci France SAS, Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Marbella Pellami S.p.A., Gucci Logistica S.p.A., GG Luxury Goods GmbH, Gucci Belgium SA, G Commerce Europe S.p.A. , GG FRANCE SERVICES SAS
Procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by AGFA NV against nine Gucci group entities concerning European Patent EP3388490. The defendants jointly sought to protect as trade secrets certain information contained in their Statement of Defence and Rejoinder relating to the Gucci group's internal organization, supply chain, and sales data. The Hamburg Local Division granted the application, classifying the identified information as confidential under R. 262A RoP and restricting its use outside the present proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc.
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd
Aiko Energy Germany GmbH filed a revocation action against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3065184 relating to trench processes for backside contact solar cells. Before the Statement for Revocation was served on the Defendant, the Claimant withdrew the claim and requested partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid.
Arcelormittal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Arcelormittal appealed an order dated 07.05.2024 which held that its patent application regarding a method for producing tin containing nongrain-oriented silicon steel sheet was neither inventive nor sufficiently disclosed. The court accepted the exemption and issued directions for further proceedings, including filing written synopses by both parties.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. v.Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with seizing alleged infringing products using Local Commissioners. Furthermore, it permitted the commissioners to inspect defendants' books of accounts and stock registers related to the disputed goods. This order significantly advances the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction regarding the 'Liv.52' trademark and Himalaya's distinctive trade dress.
Madapes Limited v.Madapes Promo Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Madapes Limited against the defendants. The court recognized that the plaintiff's marks ('MADAPES', 'MAD APES') were being used deceptively by the respondents, leading to claims of passing off and copyright infringement over logos and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific actions, including blocking fraudulent Telegram accounts and taking down an incorrectly registered website, to protect the plaintiff's brand integrity.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd v.Resolute Healthcare & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd against Resolute Healthcare & Ors. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'TRYGABA', is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'TRIGABANTIN'. Given that both products treat neuropathic pain and the similarity was intentional (truncation), the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling the infringing product until further notice. The injunction allows the defendants a grace period of three months to exhaust their current stock.
Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v.Registrar of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Amgen AB, Amgen s.r.l., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Amgen N.V. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
Niranjan Arvind Gosavi v.Innovatiview India Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's technology infringes on their patent, which is related to a tender issued by the National Testing Agency. The plaintiffs seek to compare their patented technology with that of the defendant.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of three patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of their patent rights and an injunction against the defendants' alleged infringement.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of several patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction and damages for the alleged infringement.
Mr. Prashant Philips v.M/s. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 1196/CHENP/2011, which related to using document length as a static relevance feature for ranking search results. The appellant argued that the invention provided a specific technical effect beyond general computing processes and was not merely an algorithm. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Tag Heuer S.A. v.Tinya International
Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit against Tinya International and others alleging infringement of its trademarks (TAG HEUER) and copyrights related to its stylized labels. The court found in favor of Tag Heuer, granting permanent injunctions and awarding specific monetary reliefs.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 202147005676 for a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the invention exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in reducing cataract symptoms in neonatal rabbits. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to properly consider the experimental data demonstrating pharmacodynamic studies and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Madhu Food Products v.Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Madhu Food Products, upholding the Commercial Court's initial order favoring Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning food products under the marks 'HUNK' and 'HUNT'. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellant copied the respondent's distinctive trade dress and packaging, concluding that the use of 'HUNT' was intended to take advantage of the respondent's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting brand identity through both trademark registration and distinct visual presentation.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Accord Distillers And Brewers Pvt Ltd
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand 'BLENDERS PRIDE', the Delhi High Court allowed Pernod Ricard India Private Limited to introduce supplementary documentation. The petitioner sought these documents to rebut the respondent's denial regarding the well-known status and earlier adoption of their trademark. This interim order facilitates the ongoing litigation, allowing both parties to present a more complete factual record before the court.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v.Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd against its former licensee, Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited, and associated entities. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants continued to use the plaintiff's registered 'UTRACON' marks after the license expired. Furthermore, the court directed the blocking of the infringing domain name www.utraconindia.com, securing immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand.
Krbl Limited v.Rajesh Kejriwal Trading As Chemical Centre India And Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Krbl Limited sought permission to introduce several documents into the court record. The Delhi High Court allowed the admission of statutory and official records pertaining to the respondent, while rejecting other documents presented by the petitioner due to lack of relevance in the current proceedings. This order allows both parties time to prepare comprehensive written synopses detailing the chronological events and legal arguments for the final adjudication of the cancellation petition.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.Www10Xbettcom & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead additional infringing websites, domains, and their registrars in a suit concerning trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court extended the existing ad-interim injunction to these newly added defendants. The order imposes strict restraints on the new parties, prohibiting them from using the 'MY11CIRCLE' mark or similar names, while also directing domain name registrars to suspend/block infringing domains and disclose subscriber information.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Vishnu Enterprises & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-litigation mediation, while crucially allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Specifically, the court authorized search and seizure operations through Local Commissioners to protect the registered trademarks and copyrights associated with the 'HELL' brand, paving the way for robust enforcement against alleged infringers.
Ms Allanasons Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the matter concerning Ms Allanasons Private Limited versus The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. This interim order scheduled both associated commercial IP disputes (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024) for a hearing on August 29, 2025. The court's directive indicates the ongoing procedural progression of these trademark matters.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., , TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Orbisk B.V. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_327/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Orbisk B.V. (Defendant) - Kanaalweg 29 A - 3526 KM - Utrecht - NL Statement of
Manfred Sauer GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for re-trial (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies. The re-trial application challenged the Court of Appeal's earlier order of February 26, 2024, which had overturned a first-instance interim injunction in favor of 10x and ordered 10x to bear the costs. The application alleged fundamental procedural errors, including violation of the right to be heard and Article 6 ECHR. The Court of Appeal addressed key principles regarding the interpretation of its own reasoning, the non-reviewability of evidentiary assessment in re-trial proceedings, and the legal basis for cost allocation in summary proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, confirmed the parties' cost-sharing arrangement, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The core dispute revolves around the dismissal of their patent application based on a cited document (D5), which the appellant claims is no longer active and that the respondent illegally raised the issue of Common General Knowledge.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.
Oracle International Corporation v.Cis It Solutions Pvt Ltd
Oracle International Corporation challenged an Arbitral Award that denied it the transfer of the domain name www.exadata.in, despite Oracle holding registered trademarks for 'EXADATA.' The Delhi High Court found that the arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence and suggested the award was contrary to public policy. While the court did not overturn the award immediately, it initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the respondent, signaling a significant legal challenge to the initial domain dispute resolution.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint in a suit concerning trademark and passing off infringement. The amendment was sought because a previously pending trademark application (Z GOLD) had subsequently been granted registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. Both parties consented to the change, allowing the plaintiff to incorporate this new registered right into the ongoing litigation.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Micro Labs Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 247381, while Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company sought permanent injunction against Micro Labs for infringing the patent using 'Apixaban' and 'APIVAS'. The parties successfully negotiated a settlement agreement in mediation.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a security deposit under Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously granted Ortovox an ex parte interim injunction on December 11, 2023, against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, requiring security of EUR 500,000 in the form of either a deposit or a bank guarantee. After Ortovox initially deposited the amount and later also provided a bank guarantee, creating double security, the court addressed whether the original deposit could be released.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1 in an infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening. The order addresses the plaintiff's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further amendment of the patent, following an initial amendment request filed on March 23, 2024 in response to a counterclaim for revocation by the second defendant. The court held that the timing of the decision on admissibility of a further amendment request lies within the discretion of the court, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not apply to subsequent amendment requests under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed the service of a patent infringement statement of claim on Xiaomi entities located in China and Hong Kong. It held that service cannot be effected merely through a sister Xiaomi company domiciled in a contracting member state, as such a group company cannot automatically be treated as the defendant's registered seat, head office, principal place of business, or a place of business under Rule 271.5(a). The Court further held that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention pursuant to Rule 274.1(a)(ii) must generally be pursued before resorting to alternative service methods under Rule 275.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
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, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.