Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7701–7800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the suit filed by Havells India Ltd against Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors. The core dispute involves alleged fraudulent investment schemes operating under the 'HAVELLS' brand name. Crucially, the court issued significant interim directions, ordering defendants to block access to infringing websites and provide complete disclosure/block of KYC details associated with accounts used for these illegal activities. Furthermore, procedural matters were settled, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of electronic evidence.
NanoString v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
WARMCOOK, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 RoP application by the defendants in a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants sought permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) referenced in their statement of defence on USB sticks, as the files exceeded the maximum upload size for the CMS. The judge-rapporteur granted permission to submit the physical exhibits but directed the defendants to follow the prescribed procedure for registering physical exhibits to the CMS via a separate application workflow.
Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_169/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 25/07/2024 APPLICANT/S 3) Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. (Defendant) - Prinses Beatrixlaan 582 - 2595BM - The Hague (Den Haag) - DE Represented by
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Respondent
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH brought an infringement action against Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., and VitalAire GmbH before the Local Division Hamburg based on European Patent EP 2196231. The defendants (Tandem Diabetes) filed an application under Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that when balancing the interests of both parties—who are international companies operating worldwide—the position of the defendant is the decisive factor when the outcome of the balancing is equal.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ZipString LLC regarding string shooting devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation and obviousness grounds, specifically addressing whether YouTube videos qualify as printed publications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems' IPR challenge against Croga Innovations regarding network security claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the cited prior art did not teach or suggest the critical 'internal firewall' limitations required by the patent claims.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T's IPR challenge against Innovative Sonic's wireless patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that AT&T failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding specific claim limitations related to SCell configuration using 3GPP standards.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board agreed with the Petitioner that combinations of prior art references (Wagner, Yeany, Scorch, Abello) rendered numerous claims invalid under 102 and 103.
Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh v.Pawan Sharma
The plaintiff, Hugo Boss Trademark Management Gmbh, filed a suit alleging that the defendant was using identical/similar trademarks ('BOSS HUGO BOSS', 'BOSS', etc.) in relation to clothing and garments, causing confusion. The court found the plaintiff entitled to relief, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Vishal Choudhary v.Snpc Machines Private Limited
Vishal Choudhary appealed an order that restrained him from manufacturing and selling brick making machines due to alleged patent and copyright infringement. The High Court reviewed the matter, including a local commissioner's report confirming the availability of eight such machines.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited & Anr. v.Smt Krishnaben Dipesh Gol & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a significant victory to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited, directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar 'AMUL' trademark registered by the respondents in Class-06. The court recognized AMUL as a well-known trademark entitled to high protection across classes, thereby preventing unauthorized use and protecting the brand's integrity. This ruling reinforces the robust legal standing of established national brands against subsequent registrations.
M/s.Chaitanya Food Product v.M/s.Honey Food Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition (TM) No.277 of 2023 after the petitioner, M/s.Chaitanya Food Product, sought permission to withdraw the case. The dispute concerning the registered service mark No.3091641 was reported as settled between the parties. This outcome highlights how parties can resolve trademark disputes outside of a full judicial ruling.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS, Photon Wave Co.,Ltd.
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/07/2024 DEMANDEUR Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd Représenté par Pauline Debré 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - Répub
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google and Cerence entered a joint settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings covering Cerence's automotive voice‑assistant patents. The Board granted the motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics, Google LLC and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 7,395,078, a speech‑recognition technology. Consequently, they filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR, citing the settlement and early stage of the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Piyush Goel
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Piyush Goel alleging infringement of its trademarks, including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design', as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was clandestinely stocking and selling inferior quality jeans using deceptively similar marks. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several procedural matters in CS(COMM) 225/2024 and CS(COMM) 226/2024. It allowed the plaintiff time to file replication, issued notice for the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of Patent No. 319855, and granted permission to the defendant to submit prior art evidence via a pen drive.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM S.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 23 July 2024, addressing procedural questions concerning applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP. The order establishes that such applications imply a request to disclose the outcome of the measures to the applicant, but that disclosure must be subject to the protection of confidential information. The Court clarifies that the defendant must be heard on disclosure requests even if they have not filed a remedy against the underlying preservation order, and that failure to seek review cannot be construed as tacit approval of disclosure.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Respondent
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
This order of the Court of Appeal addresses the interpretation of Article 60 UPCA regarding applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises. The court clarified that such applications imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but this disclosure is subject to confidentiality protections. The court must hear the other party before deciding on disclosure, and the opportunity for confidentiality requests is distinct from remedies against the preservation order itself.
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 case concerns an appeal in a main infringement action involving patent EP 3000239, where ICPillar appealed an order requiring it to provide adequate security for legal costs. ICPillar sought to keep parts of an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) confidential, but the Court of Appeal rejected this request. The Court then addressed ICPillar's argument that it should be allowed to amend its Statement of appeal to maintain equality of arms, which the Court also rejected.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple independent and dependent claims unpatentable. The grounds were anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), based on the prior art reference Tateishi.
R. & D. S.R.L. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
R. & D. S.R.L. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application (No. 8850/CHENP/2012) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the application or disallowing amended claims. The High Court agreed, finding the decision unsupported by adequate reasoning.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several applications in the suit, including granting time for the plaintiff to file a replication. Crucially, the defendant filed a counterclaim under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 319855. Additionally, the court allowed the defendant to submit prior art via an encrypted pen drive.
M/s Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd v.Akshay Uttamchand Jain Trading As Micon Industries
The plaintiff, Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using the deceptively similar trademark 'MICON', infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BIOCON'. The court found that the resemblance was close enough to constitute passing off and infringement.
Cosco India Ltd v.Varsha Sports
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright, Cosco India Ltd successfully moved an application before the Delhi High Court. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce official certificates from the Trademark Registry into the record. This procedural step is crucial for establishing the validity and scope of the intellectual property rights at the nascent stage of the litigation.
Pfizer Products Inv. v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Pfizer Products Inv. against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. The court noted that the respondents had withdrawn their trademark registration application, rendering the original dispute moot and infructuous. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Amul Brush Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the ongoing dispute between Satnam Brush Industry and Amul Brush Company. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction to Satnam Brush Industry, recognizing that the defendants' packaging and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established brand 'AMBER'. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' books of accounts and infringing products, signaling a deep dive into the alleged infringement and passing off.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
This order concerns a dispute over confidentiality protection and access restrictions in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) had requested access restrictions under Rule 262A RoP regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply. The Rapporteur issued a confidentiality order on 03.07.2024 granting access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and three named natural persons. The defendants sought review under Rule 333 RoP, arguing that the three named individuals should be excluded because they are responsible for strategic decisions in parallel US proceedings and could not disregard the confidential information once obtained.
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HP v.Dolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing to overturn the Director’s denial of institution for its body‑camera patents, arguing that the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due process. The company offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy the Board’s discretionary analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB denied Motorola Solutions' request for rehearing of the Director Review Decision that vacated the institution of four IPRs, including the challenge to Stellar's patent 9,485,471. The Board held the rescission of the 2022 Interim Procedure Memo was not retroactively applicable and the petitioner offered no new substantive evidence.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions filed an authorized response defending the PTAB’s institution of its IPR against Stellar’s request for Director Review. The brief argues that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors, that the rescinded Guidance Memo is irrelevant, and that no abuse of discretion occurred.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Stellar, LLC's surveillance apparatus patent (9912914) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed features are merely combinations of existing prior art references related to video recording and data management.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,485,471 owned by Stellar, LLC. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets key features related to video surveillance and data buffering.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar's U.S. Patent No. 7,593,034 in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that the claimed features of the video surveillance apparatus are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This challenge targets multiple claims related to data recording, wireless interfaces, and file indexing.
DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v.Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH initiated an IPR challenge against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP concerning a patent covering oral/topical drug delivery systems. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing prior art references including Dohil and Grother.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR proceeding, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for Motorola Solutions against Stellar LLC. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining prior art references would teach the challenged limitations, moving the case toward substantive obviousness analysis.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review of an institution decision and subsequently denied the IPR for Motorola Solutions against Stellar, LLC. The denial was based on Fintiv factors favoring dismissal due to extensive prior litigation in district court.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Stellar, LLC regarding patent 7593034. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Yerazunis and Fiore. This moves the dispute into substantive trial phase.
Hero Motocorp Limited v.Mr. Vishal Chhatwani
Hero Motocorp Limited filed a suit against Mr. Vishal Chhatwani alleging infringement across multiple IP domains, including trademark, design, and copyright, related to industrial oils and lubricants. The parties successfully entered into mediation, leading to a comprehensive settlement agreement dated July 9, 2024. The court subsequently decreed the suit in favor of Hero Motocorp Limited based on the terms of this settlement, which included an acknowledgment of IP ownership and payment of ₹ 4,00,000/- by the defendants.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision dismissing an opposition against a similar mark (ZORA). The appellant argued that the use of ZORA by a bag manufacturer would exploit the goodwill and reputation of their well-known trademark, ZARA, particularly in relation to textiles. While the court granted procedural relief regarding delay condonation and exemption from filing copies, it issued notice to the opposing party (Respondent No. 2) to file a reply, indicating that the substantive dispute over trademark infringement and passing off is yet to be decided.
Emami Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Emami Ltd. seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'CHYAWANPRASAD' registered in favor of Dabur India Ltd. The petitioner argued that the respondent was not using the mark, engaging in what they termed 'ghost registration.' Although the respondent initially conceded non-use, the court directed Dabur to immediately initiate the process for cancellation of the mark from the Trade Mark Registry, effectively favoring Emami's claim regarding the mark's validity and use.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Jagatjit Industries Limited & Ors.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited filed petitions seeking the cancellation of a rival trademark registration, 'ROYAL PRIDE,' held by Jagatjit Industries Limited. The petitioner alleged that ROYAL PRIDE is deceptively similar to its prior and well-established mark, 'BLENDERS PRIDE,' and was being used illicitly to ride upon their goodwill. While some applications were disposed of after granting a 30-day extension for filing clear documents, the court proceeded with issuing notice in the main cancellation petition, setting the matter for further arguments.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite having been provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked proper reasoning regarding both grounds. The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The High Court found that the respondent's order was unreasoned because it failed to discuss the appellant's explanation regarding the amendments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation u. a.
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against European Patent EP 3 646 825, owned by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, relating to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation. The claimant argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons, including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The patent at issue was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from US applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012.
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action and counterclaims for revocation regarding European patent EP 3 646 825, which relates to prosthetic heart valve systems with sealing mechanisms to prevent perivalvular leakage. Meril Italy Srl filed the main revocation action, while Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation against the patent proprietor Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The claimant argued, among other grounds, that the patent's subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Brussels concerning an Application for Review filed by the defendants against a prior case management order. The defendants, OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV, sought review of Order ORD_37783/2024 of 8 July 2024, which had rejected their objection against the claimant's equivalence arguments while granting an extension for filing a Statement of Rejoinder until 1 August 2024. The underlying dispute relates to European Patent EP 2 331 036 and concerns the permissibility of the claimant supplementing factual context, adding equivalence-based infringement arguments, and adjusting the prayer for relief in their Reply to the Statement of Defence.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This case concerns a revocation action filed by Meril Italy Srl against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation regarding European Patent No. EP 3 646 825, which relates to embodiments of a prosthetic heart valve featuring a sealing mechanism to prevent or minimize perivalvular leakage. The patent was filed on 16 July 2012 as a divisional application and claims priority from two earlier patent applications of 15 July 2011 and 13 July 2012. The claimant sought revocation of the patent on grounds including that the subject matter was extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd filed counterclaims for revocation in the proceedings.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Masaba seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that upheld an obviousness finding on its aggregate transferring system patent. The patent owner contends the Board ignored critical real‑world evidence and mis‑qualified the petitioner’s expert.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute, prompting the PTAB to dismiss IPR2024-01160 before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to dismiss and ordered the settlement kept confidential.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda and Infogation settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,743, prompting a joint motion to dismiss the pending IPR before it was instituted.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Solaris defends the PTAB's finding that Masaba’s conveyor patent is obvious, emphasizing lack of nexus and proper expert testimony. The response rebuts Masaba’s secondary‑considerations arguments and procedural objections.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix petitions the PTAB to invalidate 13 claims of Watson Guide IP’s dental guide patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar Inc. et al. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Canadian Solar Inc. has initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent on back-contact solar cell technology. The petitioner argues that key claims are unpatentable due to obviousness when combining the patented structure with various prior art references.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Petitioner Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged U.S. Patent No. 10,602,448 covering remote wakeup systems in a PTAB petition. The challenge asserts that the patent is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Zhang, Zill, Liu).
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. has filed an IPR Petition challenging patents held by THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY regarding Peer-to-Peer (P2P) connectivity for video streaming. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Lorex Manual and Kim941.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
Petitioners successfully achieved institution in this IPR challenging Masaba, Inc.'s aggregate transfer apparatus patent (11780689). The petition asserts that the claimed system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on predictable combinations of various prior art references.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. challenged Infogation Corp.'s patent 6292743, arguing that the claimed use of non-proprietary, natural language formats for routes was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner relies on various prior art references, including McGrath and Knockeart, to demonstrate that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to make simple modifications.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Major wireless carriers, including AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, have filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of a patent related to Radio Link Control (RLC) protocols. Petitioners argue that the challenged claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by existing 3GPP communication standards. The core dispute centers on whether prior art correctly detects protocol errors in wireless transmissions.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
3D Diagnostix successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Watson Guide IP regarding dental prosthesis claims under 103. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness, despite disputes over claim language and prior art interpretation.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
Reolink Innovation Inc. challenged the validity of a network communications patent (US 10602448) based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The PTAB issued an institution decision, finding sufficient likelihood for petitioner to prevail on at least one claim.
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Solaris against Masaba's aggregate handling patent (11780689), finding a reasonable likelihood that key claims are obvious over Waldner and Dynatek.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
The PTAB denied AT&T and other petitioners' challenges to Innovative Sonic Limited's wireless patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of success. The Board rejected arguments that 3GPP specifications anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed error handling method.
3D Diagnostix, Inc. v.Watson Guide IP, LLC
The PTAB found that all challenged claims were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Llop '126 and Sichuan. The Board determined there was a clear motivation for a person skilled in the art to combine these references to achieve the claimed invention.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. Specifically, Claim 1 and dependent claims were found obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using combinations like the Lorex Manual and Kim '941. This decision significantly weakens the Patent Owner's position in this IPR proceeding.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.THROUGH TEK TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN) CO., LTD. et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all 19 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation by Zhang (Sec. 102) and obviousness using combinations of Zhang/Zill and Liu/Zhang (Sec. 103).
Solaris Oilfield Site Services Operating, LLC et al. v.Masaba, Inc.
The PTAB found all 25 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board determined that the combination of prior art references Waldner and Dynatek, along with others like Auld and McIver, rendered the claimed aggregate transferring apparatus predictable engineering.
Ve Commercial Vehicles Limited v.Jaswant Industries & Ors
The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered designs related to the Volvo 9600 buses. The defendants are accused of copying the design and engaging in unfair competition.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of Patent No. 262968, along with damages and other reliefs. The case involves allegations of contempt against the defendants for violating an interim injunction.
ITW GSE APS & ANR. v.DABICO AIRPORT SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to Pre-Conditioned Air (PCA) units. A judgment was passed on July 4, 2024, restraining the defendants from dealing with the infringing units.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117031510. The appellant contends that the refusal was erroneous as the application meets all criteria for patentability, while the respondent argued it failed tests under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 3(e)/3(i) of the Patents Act.
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Galactica Processing Technologies Llp
Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. appealed an order from the Additional District Judge-11, Surat, challenging a rejection of its interim injunction application in a patent infringement suit. The plaintiff claimed that defendants were infringing their patented Diamond Holding Devices used in High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) diamond treatment. The Gujarat High Court upheld the trial court's finding, concluding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, though the defendants were directed to maintain accurate accounts of revenue related to the disputed technology.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The High Court found that the Controller failed to assign valid reasons for either rejection ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Sakata Seed Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sakata Seed Corporation appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'Eustoma having Cytoplasmic Male Sterility,' citing that it was essentially a biological process. The appellant argued that specific human interventions, such as screening and checking hybrid seeds, made the invention non-biological. The High Court agreed with this contention but found the Controller lacked sufficient reasoning on the matter.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 592/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller, which cited non-compliance with Section 59(1) of the Patents Act regarding amendments. The High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned because the Controller failed to discuss the appellant's explanation despite it being provided. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Syngenta Limited And Anr v.Gsp Crop Science Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued an order in a patent-related suit, directing the appointment of a Scientific Advisor from IIT Delhi. The advisor is tasked with examining the manufacturing processes, sites, and chemical usage by the Defendant regarding DroneX and Azoxystrobin technical to assist the court in resolving complex technical issues.