Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7601–7700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
DexCom Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott s.r.l., Abbott GmbH, Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes reviews covering patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486. The Board terminated the proceedings based on a written settlement agreement and granted confidentiality for the agreement.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,740,926 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding before a final written decision was issued.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the related IPRs. The motion relies on statutory authority and Board precedent favoring termination after settlement.
EndyMed Medical 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. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Intellectual Ventures I LLC's wireless communication patent (7623439) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge centers on whether a minor modification to OFDM cyclic delay diversity is inventive over existing prior art standards.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenges Patent 9845486 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in microbiological detection methods. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Rayman and Nagar, disclose or render obvious the claimed steps involving sampling, dilution, and assaying.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to Cyclic Diversity Systems (OFDM), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically found deficiencies in meeting the duration requirements when comparing cyclic advance against prior art disclosures like Larsson and IEEE.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR challenges against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11740926). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Veselov and Mohanty regarding cloud security methods.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully challenged claims 1-30 of the '486 patent in a PTAB Institution Decision, establishing a reasonable likelihood that the methods for pathogen detection are unpatentable. The petitioner relied on prior art references including Rayman and Nagar to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness across multiple grounds.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Trading As Yonex Co Ltd v.Harshit Setia & Anr.
Yonex filed a petition seeking the rectification and expungement of a trademark registration (No. 5548308) in Class 25, held by Harshit Setia, for the mark 'AERUS'. Yonex argued that the registration was obtained in bad faith and lacked bonafide use, making it ex facie illegal under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies within specified timelines, setting the matter for further hearing.
Havells India Ltd v.Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Sunita Jaykumar Patel & Anr. v.International Institute Of Pelvic Floor Research Rahab and Education & Ors.
This Gujarat High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging a restrictive interim injunction granted in a trademark and copyright dispute. The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to resolve key aspects of the conflict, specifically regarding the use of the 'V Care' mark and the scope of copyright protection for educational materials. Consequently, the court substituted the original injunction order with the terms agreed upon in the MoU, effectively settling the immediate dispute at the injunction stage.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Jindal (India) Limited against Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr. While granting procedural exemptions, the court specifically advanced the main injunction request (I.A. 6082/2024). The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered mark 'JINDAL' and the defendants' usage on roofing sheets, ordering notice to the defendants to record their undertaking before the Court.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking permission to introduce crucial new evidence into the ongoing trademark dispute. The plaintiff sought to file the official trademark registration certificate and status, which was granted after the initial opposition filed by the defendants was rejected. This ruling allows the plaintiff to strengthen its case for rectification in the suit.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP It
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1 and addresses the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB against fifteen HP entities. The court established that, unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure and may apply for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A regarding information contained in their submissions.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request for confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1. The defendant/applicant BEGO Medical GmbH sought access restrictions for information about its attorney costs submitted in annexes to its brief following an interim hearing under Rule 104(k). The judge-rapporteur addressed the interplay between inter-party confidentiality under Rule 262A and public access restrictions under Rule 262.2, establishing guiding principles for balancing the relevant interests.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This procedural order concerns an intervention application filed by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The patent relates to a color and light mixing collective optic for outdoor imaging display panels. STRABAG had installed LED variable message signs supplied by Chainzone at Austrian motorway locations under a contract from ASFINAG. The court addressed the admissibility of the intervention and the question of whether the intervener could be ordered to provide security for costs.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected it on the grounds that the invention was a method of treatment, making it unpatentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the claim described an in vitro method of selecting T-cell lines, not a direct method of treating a patient. The Madras High Court agreed with this distinction, finding that the rejection was based on an erroneous application of law to the facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Irvinder Laur Chadha v.Garnish Electronics Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed to remove the trademark 'GARNISH'. The court found that the registration had expired on June 4, 2022. Since the statutory grace period for restoration and renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, had lapsed in 2023, the court directed the Registry to remove the mark. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark registrations.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities concerning European Patent 3,666,797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). The defendants had filed revocation actions, and the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024. Both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision, and the court granted the stay.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents, BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation, did not submit any comments. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that since the proceedings had come to an end, the interests opposing publication under Article 45 UPCA were not substantial enough to override the requester's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus and method for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged the patent was invalid due to added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty over several prior art documents, and lack of inventive step. The defendant filed a statement of defence along with a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The court addressed procedural issues concerning the admissibility of amendments to non-attacked claims and the permissibility of new grounds for revocation raised in the reply.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, for access to written pleadings and evidence from prior preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) involving European Patent EP3831283. Abbott opposed the request, arguing that its appeal of the refused preliminary injunction meant the proceedings were still ongoing and that the integrity of the proceedings remained at issue. The Judge-Rapporteur applied the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore decision and granted public access to the register pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_501/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/07/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 27/12/2023 Meril GmbH (Defendant) - Bornheimer Straße 135- 137 - 53119 - Bonn - DE Statement of claim
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal addressed a procedural question regarding where a cost determination application (Kostenfestsetzung) must be filed when it follows an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance and decided by the Rapporteur of that instance, even when the application relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute concerned EP 3883277, where the Local Chamber Munich had rejected VusionGroup's application for interim measures and ordered it to bear Hanshow's costs.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This order concerned an application by Powell Gilbert LLP, acting as a member of the public, for public access to written pleadings and evidence lodged in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2713879, owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceedings had concluded with a final order, though an appeal was pending. Applying the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore precedent, the Judge-Rapporteur weighed the interest in public access against the protection of the integrity of the proceedings and the parties' interests, and granted the application for public access to the register under Rule 262.1 RoP.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services challenges Intellectual Ventures II LLC's patent on secure transaction apparatuses, asserting that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on references like Wang et al., Drummond, and TAO to establish grounds for unpatentability under 102 and 103. This initial petition sets up a broad challenge across multiple claim sets related to mobile authentication.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Is Eg Halal India Private Limited v.Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan Live News & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan Live News, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court restrained the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'HINDUSTAN LIVE NEWS' and directed Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram) and Google LLC (YouTube) to immediately remove infringing content. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect established brand goodwill in the digital media space.
Primestack Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.John Doe And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Primestack Pte. Ltd against John Doe and others regarding the infringement of its registered trademark 'CoinDCX'. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss was likely, and the balance of convenience favored granting relief. The order specifically restrained unauthorized use of the trademarks and directed various defendants to suspend operations of associated accounts, domains, and phone numbers.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face, Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against FriendliAI Inc., arguing that the challenged claims related to Transformer inference optimization are obvious.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_419/2023 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 26/07/2024 DEMANDEUR 1) CANÈ S.p.A. Via Cuorgnè 42/A 10098 - Rivoli (TO) - IT Représenté par Konstantin Schallmoser DÉFENDEUR 1) FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
Valeo Electrification v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, in which the applicant Valeo Electrification sought leave to amend its application for provisional measures by deleting the word 'alternatively' from its claim, thereby converting an alternative claim into a main claim. The court granted leave, holding that Rule 263 RoP applies to provisional measure proceedings and that the amendment constituted an unconditional limitation under R. 263.3 RoP that did not unduly prejudice the defendants.
OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV v.***
1 Beschikking van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht gegeven op 26 juli 2024 NOOT: Een verzoek om opschortende werking met betrekking tot een beschikking van het Gerecht om de in het Procesreglement bepaalde termijn voor de indiening van een conclusie van een part
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This appeal concerned a security for costs order granted in favor of ARM Limited and its affiliated entities against ICPillar LLC in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3000239. ICPillar sought to have the security order set aside and initially requested confidentiality over an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) attached to its Statement of Appeal. After the Court of Appeal rejected the confidentiality request and the unredacted document was made available, ICPillar sought permission to amend its own Statement of Appeal and grounds of appeal to maintain equality of arms. The Court of Appeal rejected this request, holding that ICPillar controlled the redactions from the outset and could have lodged redacted grounds of appeal initially.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all five claims of Lian Li’s illumination‑fan patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that the Board should not deny institution under discretionary statutes.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake files a response urging the PTAB to deny Lian Li’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in a lighting‑technology patent. The brief stresses procedural impropriety and the lack of any new legal or factual issues.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its LED fan patent unpatentable. The request centers on inconsistent claim‑construction positions between the IPR and parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display files a response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Pictiva’s request for Director Review. The petitioner emphasizes that the Sotera stipulation and prior guidance make a discretionary denial inappropriate.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,301,666. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and argues that the Board should end the proceeding before any merits are decided.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial, resulting in termination of the proceedings and confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR over U.S. Patent 9,301,666 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Court decision.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Stratus Medical’s response to Avanos’s IPR argues that the petition’s obviousness challenges fail because the alleged combination is vague, non‑enabling, and not taught by the prior art, while emphasizing commercial success and industry praise as objective indicia of non‑obviousness.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR Petition challenging 13 claims of a patent covering cyclonic separation and filtration systems. The petition argues that the claimed vacuum cleaner features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core technology in the high-end cleaning appliance market.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging Claims 1-5 of the '336 Patent. The petition asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on combinations of various prior art references related to illumination fan assemblies.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC filed an IPR petition challenging 49 claims related to modular cassette systems used in fiber optics. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art combinations involving Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope and others challenged Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Fukui, Sedor, and Sauter. The petitioner focuses heavily on how these existing designs meet specific structural limitations of the patented technology.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging Belden Canada ULC's patent on modular fiber optic cassette systems. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are invalid based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Specifically, they argue prior art references such as Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor render the claimed features unpatentable.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Petitioner Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's '664 Patent, asserting that all claimed features are obvious over various combinations of prior art references in RF ablation technology. The challenge rests entirely on statutory grounds of 35 U.S.C. § 103, utilizing multiple prior art patents related to neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical challenges Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle claims at the PTAB, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner argues that combining multiple prior art references—including Racz, Fitz, and Lee—would have motivated a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art to create the claimed device.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical filed a Petition challenging Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy needle patent ('782 Patent). The central argument is that the claimed device is obvious because it merely combines conventional features from prior art references like Racz, Fitz, and Lee. This challenges 27 claims related to advanced medical ablation technology.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Multiple major carriers, including AT&T and T-Mobile, have filed a Petition challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s '868 patent on grounds of obviousness. The petitioners argue that the core concepts related to beam correspondence and higher layer signaling in 5G NR were anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references Jung and Xiong. This challenge targets several claims relating to advanced wireless communication methods.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one claim based on obviousness. The Board specifically found evidence supporting Claim 1 over Lai and Hasegawa, while also noting inconclusive findings regarding Tsuji/Huang combinations.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201948026247) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi. The appeal argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal.
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748028185) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court agreed, finding the rejection contrary to established law.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited v.Idealpe Matrix Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited against Idealpe Matrix Private Limited. While granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and directed that summons be issued to the defendants. The order also detailed the plaintiffs' claims regarding their prior use of the 'FRONTIER' mark across various domains and products, setting the stage for the substantive trial.
Anupam Saxena v.Shiv Verma Trading As Marksons Herbal Life & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Anupam Saxena against Shiv Verma Trading As Marksons Herbal Life & Ors. The court found that the plaintiff's brand 'ADIBASI Hair Oil,' along with its distinctive trade dress and packaging, constitutes a valid registered trademark and original artistic work under copyright law. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling products deceptively similar to ADIBASI until the final hearing, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation.
Scrum Alliance, Inc. v.M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Scrum Alliance, Inc. against M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. and others. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were deceptively adopting trademarks like 'CSM' and 'Certified Scrum Master' for education services, misleading the public into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using these confusingly similar marks until the final hearing.
Nirmal Seeds Private Limited v.M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft against M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited. The court granted permanent injunctions and authorized the immediate seizure of goods bearing deceptively similar marks at the defendants' premises. Furthermore, it appointed Local Commissioners to inspect inventory and books of accounts related to the alleged infringement, providing strong protection for Hell Energy's brand in the Indian market.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.