Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7501–7600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson Inc. et al. filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against XR Communications LLC's patent related to wireless communications. The petition challenges key claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the technology is obvious over prior art references Trigui and Rudrapatna. The grounds focus on the predictability of adopting a 'cross' connect approach for MIMO transceivers.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Astrazeneca Ab v.T Rao
The Delhi High Court framed multiple issues regarding the validity of three Indian Patents (IN 209907, IN 247984, IN 272674) held by Astrazeneca Ab. The court also addressed infringement claims related to the product TICAGRELOR and granted procedural directions for evidence recording.
Natalja Eikje v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natalja Eikje filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Controller of Patents which refused the entire set of 16 claims in Indian Patent Application No. 7173/DELNP/2014. The appellant argued that since no objection was raised against specific claims (claims 7-16), refusing the entire application violated the Principles of Natural Justice.
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.
Shri Rajesh Chugh v.Mehruddin Ansari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Shri Rajesh Chugh against Mehruddin Ansari & Anr., directing the cancellation of the rival trademark ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM. The court accepted the respondent's admission that the mark had been abandoned due to non-use, despite its initial similarity to the petitioner's established brand NIZAM'S. This ruling underscores the importance of continuous use and good faith in maintaining a registered trademark.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off of marks like 'REVITAL' and 'CEROXIM'. Despite the plaintiff alleging deceptive similarity in the defendant's marks ('ORIVITAL' and 'OXIM'), both parties expressed interest in exploring a settlement. Consequently, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution.
Elder Remedies Limited v.Elder Prroject Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those concerning document filing procedures. Crucially, the court proceeded with the main petition filed by Elder Remedies Limited seeking cancellation of a copyright registration (No. 2153/2020-CO/A). The petitioner alleges that the respondent unlawfully obtained the copyright without proper notification under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which fundamentally prejudices the petitioner's rights. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies regarding the validity of the registration.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Deepak Kumar Mittal & Anr.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd has filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of a similar trademark used by Deepak Kumar Mittal. The petitioner asserts that their family has been commercially using the 'GURU JI' mark since 1983-84, establishing prior and senior rights in relation to various goods. The court accepted notice from the respondent and directed both parties to file detailed replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a full hearing on trademark infringement/revocation.
M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries And Ors v.R. C. Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Commercial Court order that had restrained M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries (Appellants) from using its trademark and trade dress, 'AQUA PLAST'. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the competing marks were deceptively similar merely by comparing parts of the devices. Instead, the High Court emphasized that a comprehensive review of the overall commercial impression of the marks is necessary when assessing infringement, thereby favoring Ganesh Gouri's right to use its label.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their IPR dispute with patent owner Implicit, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The Board granted motions to keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu LLC and Capital One filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Patent No. 6976248, arguing they are obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Johnson, Parthasarathy, Fowlow). The petitioner asserts that the claimed software delivery methods lack inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (10536714) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed method for improving motion vector prediction was already known through prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, and Nakamura. This is an opening petition challenging a core technology in video compression standards.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia's video encoding patent, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'the block,' narrowing its scope to be associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged 17 claims of Nokia's video compression patent via IPR, arguing obviousness over prior art. The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, particularly concerning the combination of Rusert and Karczewicz techniques.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Director Review petition to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for their IPR against InfoExpress’s network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted claim language on user authentication and ignored supporting evidence from the Krantz reference.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB emailed counsel confirming receipt of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00646. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of a prior institution denial in IPR2024-00540, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,607,407 related to cleaning appliances. The challenger asserts that the patent is unpatentable under both §102 (anticipation) and §103 (obviousness).
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
FERVO ENERGY CO. challenges Ormat Technologies' patent (7320221) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over multiple combinations of geothermal and hydrocarbon prior art. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on references including Rinaldi, Mims, and Swenson.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's LDO voltage regulator patent (9471074), arguing that the claimed features are obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of references like Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, Ivanov, and Stanescu to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8,347,350), arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate predictable network access control features.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found that combinations of prior art references rendered multiple claims obvious or anticipated.
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for FERVO ENERGY CO.'s IPR challenge against Ormat Technologies, Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial was based on deficiencies in showing obviousness over prior art references like Rinaldi and Swenson.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's patent (9471074) in an IPR, arguing obviousness over Al-Shyoukh in view of Ivanov and Stanescu. The PTAB institution decision granted the petition, proceeding to trial on 18 claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Cisco and Fortinet against InfoExpress, finding no reasonable likelihood that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,347,350 would be found obvious over prior art.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB found that the claims of the voltage regulator are unpatentable under § 103 based on a combination of Al-Shyoukh and Ivanov. The Board adopted Petitioner's interpretation of key terms, including finding 'gm enhanced' synonymous with 'gm boost.'
Suprajit Engineering Limited v.Shivam Pandey And Ors
Suprajit Engineering Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against defendants for infringing its registered trademark 'SUPRAJIT', passing off, and violating its copyright related to automotive cables. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were deceptively using the mark and trade dress on their goods. The court ultimately decreed the suit, granting an injunction and awarding token damages.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns EP 3 594 009 B1, where FUJIFILM (Claimant) sought leave under Rule 263 RoP to change its conditional application to amend the patent, originally limited to the German designation, to extend to all designations. The Court rejected the application under Rule 263 RoP but reclassified the amended set of requests as a subsequent request to amend the patent under Rule 30.2 RoP and allowed it, while rejecting the Defendants' alternative request for an extension of time limits.
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 02/08/2024 concernant R.191 RdP DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - H
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Monarch’s ’775 patent, asserting that claims 1 and 6 are obvious over prior‑art MPLS and pseudo‑wire literature, including Aggarwal’s patent and Hussain’s book.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s response to Juniper’s IPR argues that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,130,775 are not obvious, emphasizing that prior‑art references do not disclose a shared link between two pseudo‑wires.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch Networking’s sur‑reply defends the validity of its MPLS‑pseudowire patent against Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed shared‑link architecture.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Juniper’s IPR petition, arguing the cited references do not teach a shared link between two pseudo‑wires and that the petition repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals has filed a PGR petition challenging all 30 claims of Exela Pharma Sciences' L‑cysteine parenteral nutrition patent, asserting lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and, alternatively, obviousness over the Sandoz label.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenged U.S. Patent 8,130,775 in an IPR, arguing that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over combinations of Wainner, Bocci, and Kamite. The Board found the merits strong and ruled to institute the proceeding, noting prior art was not substantively analyzed by the Examiner.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. initiated an IPR challenging patent 8320566 owned by Entropic Communications LLC, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Cleveland/Hayashino and Scheim/Tzannes, to demonstrate non-patentability in the field of OFDMA/Scrambling.
Nexus Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC
Nexus Pharmaceuticals' PGR challenge against Exela Pharma Sciences was denied institution because the arguments regarding enablement, written description, and obviousness were largely identical to those previously presented during prosecution. The Board found that the Patent Owner successfully demonstrated how process controls overcome prior rejections, leading to a denial of the petition under § 325(d).
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions LLC regarding packet switching claims (Claims 1 and 6). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness over combinations of prior art references, including Wainner/Bocci and Kamite/Bocci.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s IPR petition against Entropic Communications LLC's '566 patent was denied by the PTAB, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board rejected all asserted grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding obviousness over various prior art combinations in OFDMA/Spectrum Sharing technology.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 6 of the patent were unpatentable over prior art references Wainner and Bocci. The Board agreed with the Petitioner's argument that combining these references rendered the claimed method obvious, particularly regarding shared link functionality in pseudo-wires.
Terex India Private Limited v.Cde Asia Ltd.
Terex India Private Limited appealed an order refusing its post-grant opposition against Indian Patent No. 307249, which was granted to CDE Asia Ltd. The appellant argued that the Deputy Controller's decision failed to provide independent reasoning or address key legal submissions regarding patentability and prior art. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, quashing it and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Falcon Autotech Private Limited v.Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Integrated Pre-Sortation System' (Patent No. IN410846). The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to protect its statutory rights against the defendant, who was allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing sorter machines in India without proper licenses.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute between M/S Rspl Health Private Limited and Mittal Industrial Corporation & Anr. While procedural matters like exemption from certified copies were granted, the core petition seeking removal or rectification of the impugned trademark 'SAGAR SUPREME LABEL' was advanced. The court accepted notice and directed all parties to file their replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the alleged deceptive similarity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns the service of a patent infringement complaint on Xiaomi H.K. Limited in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 207 270. The Local Chamber Mannheim addressed the question of alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure after service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were refused by the requested state's central authority. The court established principles regarding when alternative service is permissible, the absence of judicial censorship of party submissions, and the publication requirements for orders recognizing prior service steps as valid service.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Endymed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR for Jeisys Medical Inc. after the parties settled their dispute. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential, and the proceeding remains open only for EndyMed petitioners.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,480,836 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before any substantive briefing or hearing.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia and Jeisys Medical settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,320,536, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia, LLC jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, separating it from the IPR file.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. and EndyMed Medical Inc. jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00384 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Serendia, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding before any oral hearing or final decision.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia requests Director Review to terminate IPR2024-00384, arguing the Board improperly expedited institution of time‑barred petitions despite a pending ITC validity finding. The petition cites the rescinded Fintiv memo and extraordinary circumstances to seek dismissal.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have settled their dispute over a dermatology‑device patent and jointly moved to terminate Ilooda’s participation in the pending IPR, requesting the settlement remain confidential.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical and Serendia have jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory confidentiality rules. The filing cites 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related CFR provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and video‑codec startup Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over a moving‑picture encoding patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical settled with SHEnB and Cartessa respondents during its IPR against Serendia, leading to a motion to suspend the schedule.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPR only for Jeisys Medical Inc. after a settlement with Serendia, while EndyMed remains as a petitioner. The settlement agreement was ordered confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,090,025, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was treated as confidential business information.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
Bowmar Archery LLC successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of claims in Patent No. 8043177, challenging its validity based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The petition cites numerous prior art references related to broadhead technology, arguing that the claimed structural elements are already known in the field.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Petitioner Jeisys Medical Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute review of U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 regarding dermatological treatment devices. The petition asserts compelling grounds for unpatentability under both 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based on multiple prior art references.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc. and Ilooda Co., Ltd. challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,320,536 in a petition asserting anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The challengers argue that the patent's claims are rendered unpatentable by prior art references including Mehta, Na ’848, Lee, and Livneh.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung filed a Petition challenging claims of the '995 Patent, arguing they are obvious in light of prior art including Phek, Segall, Martins, and He. The petitioner asserts that combining these video coding techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a POSITA.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
Alertus Technologies challenges the validity of Patent No. 9172765, arguing that all 13 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies heavily on combining prior art references, specifically Dillon and AAPA, with other relevant technical disclosures like Brady and Douglas to demonstrate obviousness in network communication protocols.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. filed a petition challenging Orca Security Ltd.'s patent via IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art references Veselov and Basavapatna. The petitioner argues that combining these two references teaches every limitation of the challenged cloud security claims.
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc.'s IPR challenge against Serendia, LLC's '836 patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board determined that the Petitioner's grounds of obviousness over prior art like Ganz were plausible and warranted further proceedings. This decision moves the dispute toward a trial phase in the medical device technology space.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Alertus Technologies against Desktop Alert, Inc.'s patent (9172765). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness and anticipation challenges.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied WIZ, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd., finding that a statutory disclaimer covered all challenged claims.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all unpatentability challenges against the broadhead patent. The Board upheld the patent owner's position on claim construction, specifically defining 'blade member' as having a cutting surface. Despite detailed arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references, the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India and Others
The writ petition challenged an administrative order denying the petitioner access to EV registration linkage data. The petitioner claimed this data was necessary to track sales and claim royalties under his patent related to electric car mechanisms. The court disposed of the petition, stating it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's rights and directing parties to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
University Of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated v.The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for application no. 202017034395, citing non-patentability under Section 3(b). The court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal before directing parties to file replies regarding the main appeal.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim International filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents' order dated April 24, 2024. The core issue is whether the patent application constitutes a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an interim exemption regarding document filing and listed the main appeal for further hearing.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
L&T Valves Limited v.M/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
The World Community Services Centre v.Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by The World Community Services Centre seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust. The dispute, which involved specific service descriptions within Trademark Registration No. 3654426, was resolved amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both parties. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to implement the terms of this compromise.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
Amycel LLC v.***
Amycel LLC filed an application for provisional measures alleging that the Defendant infringed its European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 by selling a brown mushroom strain under the name 'Cayene'. The Defendant raised invalidity arguments, contending that the mushroom strain was excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC. The Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, rejected the exclusion argument, found infringement, and granted the provisional measures sought.
Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_425/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 31/07/2024 concerning R. 191 RoP APPLICANT 1) Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. 1360 South Loop Road 94502 - Alameda - US Represented by Christian Dekoninck RESPONDENTS 1) Dexcom
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns service-of-process issues in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 3 096 315. The defendant had been separated from the main proceedings because service at the Düsseldorf address of Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH was unsuccessful, and the Hague Service Convention Central Authority of the requested state had refused service on political grounds. The Local Chamber Mannheim held that no further alternative service attempt under Rule 275.1 is required once Rules 270–274 have been exhausted and the Central Authority has definitively refused service, and ordered that the prior service steps be recognized as valid service, with publication on the court's homepage.