Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 7901–8000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
Pramit Sanghavi v.Energy Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in a suit concerning design infringement. The plaintiff, Pramit Sanghavi (representing market leaders in packaged natural mineral water), alleged that the defendant was imitating their registered bottle designs (Nos. 281573 and 311139) for their product "NU". After considering the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the Court granted an interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Pfizer Inc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Pfizer Inc has filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 27, 2024, which refused to grant a patent. Pfizer contends that the refusal was arbitrary, incorrectly concluding that the subject matter lacked technical advancement or failed Section 3(d) requirements.
Varun Chopra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Varun Chopra against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf. The court allowed the main suit to proceed after resolving jurisdictional issues and granting various procedural exemptions, including those related to document filing and advance service. Crucially, the court referred the dispute to mediation, encouraging the parties to explore an amicable settlement despite the clear allegations of passing off and trademark infringement.
Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd v.Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd in its suit against Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental regarding the alleged infringement of 'DOCTOR PILLOW'. The court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises, aiming to gather evidence of counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and condoned a delay in filing the suit, paving the way for the main litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in the unredacted version of its reply and attachments, as well as negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants (OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.) objected to the scope of the requested confidentiality regime, arguing it should extend to all related proceedings, permit information sharing with external counsel in parallel UK proceedings, and allow additional employees access. The matter was decided by the Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order extending the defendant's deadlines for filing its reply to the rejoinder on the FRAND-related statement of defense and its rejoinder on the response to the FRAND counterclaim. The deadlines, originally set to expire on July 17, 2024, were extended to August 14, 2024, following the final decision on the confidentiality protection regime. The court found the extension necessary and sufficient for the defendant to take a final position on the FRAND aspect of the dispute.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The case involves a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the plaintiff's patent titled 'Haptic Feedback System with Stored Effects', along with claims for damages and rendition of accounts. An amicable resolution was reached between the parties during the proceedings.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Spv Laboratories Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated June 14, 2024, issued by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on non-compliance with requirements under Section 60(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, due to failure to pay the renewal fee within the statutory period.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vifor (International) Ag filed an appeal against an order dated November 1, 2023, along with an application seeking condonation of a 32-day delay. The appellant argued the delay was due to technical difficulties in obtaining and stamping a Power of Attorney received from Switzerland. The court found that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and allowed the application.
Modi Paints And Varnish Works v.Sanjay Gupta And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for the rectification and removal of the 'MODI CRYL' trademark. The court found that the trademark, registered in the name of Sanjay Gupta, had lapsed as its renewal was due but never completed after May 21, 2018. Since the mark was no longer subsisting, the petitioner's request for its removal was satisfied.
M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited v.Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
The Chhattisgarh High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited (owner of GOEL), argued that the respondents were deceptively using 'GOYAL GLOBAL' in the steel goods market to capitalize on its goodwill. While directing the Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously, the High Court maintained an interim restraint order preventing the named respondents from using the disputed marks until the final judgment.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action before the Local Division Brussels regarding European Patent EP 2 331 036. The Defendants filed a Generic Procedural Application on June 24, 2024, objecting to the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence. The dispute centers on whether the Claimant may supplement the factual framework, add an equivalence-based infringement argument, and adjust the prayer for relief in his Reply. The Judge-Rapporteur issued a definitive procedural order on July 8, 2024, following a provisional order of June 25, 2024 that invited further submissions from both parties.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Ttk Prestige Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing on its design registration for the Svachh Deluxe Alpha pressure cooker. The defendant was set ex-parte after failing to respond adequately to the claims.
Bia Separations D.O.O. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bia Separations D.O.O. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.185/CHENP/2009 for 'METHOD FOR INFLUENZA VIRUS PURIFICATION'. The appeal challenged the Controller's finding that the invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sapporo Medical University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sapporo Medical University appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.1899/CHENP/2010 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to properly consider the prior art or the detailed explanations provided regarding inventive step. The High Court found the respondent's conclusion unsupported by material and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 20174704977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the invention was a computer program/implementable method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection (computer program vs. mathematical/statistical), leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 201747024977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming the invention was a non-technical computer program or mathematical method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection, leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
Arm Germany GmbH, Arm lreland Limited, Arm France SAS, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited, ARM Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, SVF Holdco, Simulity Labs Limited v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 024 163. Panasonic sought to classify certain information related to ongoing FRAND license negotiations with the defendants (OPPO and OROPE) as strictly confidential, including grey-highlighted submissions and exhibits labeled 'Anlagen KAP FRAND'. The defendants requested that access to such confidential information be restricted to specific named persons. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann of the Local Chamber Munich.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands challenges a Request for Director Review filed by BuzzBallz over the eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441, a design patent covering a pop‑top can lid. The petitioner argues the Board correctly found the patent eligible under the AIA and that the new design lacks written‑description support, urging denial of the request.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the BuzzBallz patent case.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
BuzzBallz, LLC asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution of a post‑grant review on its pre‑AIA design patent, arguing the Board misapplied written‑description standards and ignored expert testimony.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands contests the validity of BuzzBallz’s design‑patent for a beverage can lid, arguing that new matter was added to the parent application, making the patent eligible for post‑grant review under the AIA. The reply refutes the patent owner’s reliance on prior PTAB decisions and emphasizes examiner findings of new matter.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging 12 claims of a Bell Semiconductor LLC patent related to Ball Grid Array (BGA) packaging reliability. The petitioner asserts that all claims are unpatentable over prior art by demonstrating predictable modifications using combinations of known semiconductor package designs and stress mitigation techniques.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google and others filed a Petition challenging the validity of Headwater Research LLC's patent on wireless end-user device traffic control policies. The challenge asserts that the claimed features are obvious based on combinations of prior art references, including Rao, Montemurro, Freund, and Araujo.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition challenging Empire Technology Development LLC's patent related to channel estimation in MIMO-OFDM systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed invention is obvious over several distinct prior art references, including Haustein and Tang.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully petitioned for institution of its obviousness challenge against BuzzBallz's beverage container patent (11932441). The Board found that the design application introduced new matter, making the claims eligible for review.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR, securing the continuation of its obviousness challenges against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-8 over prior art references Ohata and Kavan.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands NV's request to institute Inter Partes Review against BuzzBallz LLC's patent. The denial was based on the IPR petition being filed prematurely while a concurrent Post-Grant Review proceeding was active.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google's attempt to invalidate a wireless traffic control patent was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to meet the 'reasonable likelihood' standard for obviousness. The Board found that the prior art did not sufficiently teach or suggest the specific differential traffic policies claimed in the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully secured institution in an IPR against Headwater Research LLC's '541 patent regarding device-assisted services for network capacity control. The Board found sufficient evidence that the remaining claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on prior art including Rao.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV successfully convinced the PTAB that all 20 claimed claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found obviousness over multiple prior art references, including PCAN, Metzger, and Kaminski, in a final decision.
Google LLC et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Patent 8,589,541 unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that the prior art reference Rao sufficiently disclosed key elements for many claims.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal filed by 10x Genomics against an order of the Court of First Instance (Düsseldorf Local Division) in proceedings involving EP 2 697 391, where 10x's application for provisional measures against Curio Bioscience was partly dismissed. After Curio filed its response raising questions of admissibility and necessity of the appeal but did not lodge a cross-appeal, 10x requested withdrawal of its appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Curio's consent and agreed with both parties that the determination of cost reimbursement should be deferred until a final decision in the main proceedings on the merits before the Court of First Instance.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display’s IPR petition challenging Pictiva’s display patent was denied after the Director affirmed the Board’s discretionary denial of institution, leaving the patent intact.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s '547 patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge targets an optoelectronic device by asserting that specific structural features are rendered obvious when combining teachings from several prior art references, including Igarashi and Shiotani.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd.'s IPR petition against Pictiva Displays International Ltd. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petition lacked compelling merits and determined the dispute was better suited for District Court resolution due to complex claim construction issues.
Aarogyaai Innovations Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar
The plaintiff, AarogyaAI Innovations Private Limited, holds registered trademarks for 'AarogyaAI', a software that uses AI to analyze genomic data for diagnosing drug-resistant tuberculosis. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 fraudulently purchased similar domain names (aarogyaai.com and aarogyaai.in), causing potential misrepresentation and trade mark infringement. The court found the defendants liable and decreed the suit.
M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd. v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application for an eco-friendly lamp made from panchagavya and leaves. The appellant argued that the product was novel and not merely traditional knowledge, while the respondents contended that the invention fell under Section 3(p) as it related to traditional ingredients and was obvious based on prior art D1 to D3.
Zuventus Healthcare Limited v.Zaventis Health Care Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Zuventus Healthcare Limited against Zaventis Health Care Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's mark, 'ZAVENTIS HEALTH CARE,' was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'ZUVENTUS,' leading to a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. This order allows the suit to proceed while restraining the defendant from using any deceptively similar branding in relation to pharmaceutical products.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies for alleged patent infringement. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich, with the statement of claim received on 31 July 2023 and served on the various defendants between 8 September and 19 September 2023. The order issued on 4 July 2024 by the presiding judge and rapporteur Matthias Zigann addresses an application for confidentiality/protection of trade secrets (Geheimnisschutz) within the patent infringement proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants for patent infringement. The order provides technical guidance and questions to the parties to structure further proceedings, particularly addressing the defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement of specific patent features related to LTE standard implementations involving PUCCH and SRS transmissions.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European Patent EP3435866, which relates to an analyte monitoring system (continuous glucose monitoring technology). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Paris Local Division addressed jurisdictional questions regarding the scope of dispute, the applicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the validity of the patent, finding novelty and no added subject-matter, but concluding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A has filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its application (No. 201617028283). The refusal was based on the ground that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, specifically concerning E-cigarettes.
M/S Jay Plastic Company & Ors. v.M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trade dress and trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Jay Plastic Company against M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for an immediate local commission, allowing a Local Commissioner to search the defendants' premises and seize goods bearing deceptively similar packaging and marks (SPARROW vs ARROW). This decisive step allows the plaintiffs to gather crucial evidence of infringement and unfair competition while the main suit proceeds.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd v.M/S Triad Shoes
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd, which is pursuing a suit against M/S Triad Shoes for trademark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from advance service requirements. Crucially, the court passed an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction, authorizing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged infringing goods.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, with Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG as plaintiff and Bette GmbH & Co. KG as defendant. The dispute involved issues of prior use rights, indirect patent infringement, remedies including recall and removal from distribution channels, disclosure of accounting books, and information requests. The court issued guiding principles on the territorial scope of prior use defenses, the procedural stage at which disclosure of books may be ordered, the scope of information rights during infringement proceedings, the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels, and the timing requirements for retroactive deadline extension requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This order concerns a dispute over access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. Defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) access to confidential information contained in their reply to the complaint dated 13 May 2024 and the attached annex BPV 5. The defendants argued that access should be limited to a maximum of three reliable natural persons on the plaintiffs' side, excluding their legal representatives, and that the three in-house counsel named by the plaintiffs were unsuitable due to the risk of misuse of confidential information for the plaintiffs' patent monetization program.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB denied Nintendo’s petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs against American GNC’s patents, leaving the original rulings unchanged.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited v.Arvind Fashions Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited against the trademark registration of 'NNNOW'. The dispute centered on removing specific descriptions of services from the impugned registration. Crucially, both parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo before the court. Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 owned by Mala Technologies Ltd. The dispute centered on a preliminary objection raised by Nokia, which sought to reject Mala Technologies' Application to amend the patent as inadmissible, arguing that the Defendant failed to initiate the correct workflow in the Case Management System in a timely manner. The Court denied Nokia's request, holding that the Application to amend was filed within the two-month time limit under Rule 49(1),(2) RoP and that the Rules of Procedure do not unambiguously require a separate workflow for such applications.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed an application seeking rejection of the statement of claim as manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that Suinno's representative could not be considered an independent counsellor under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the obligation to act as an independent counsellor can only be invoked by the represented party itself, not by the opposing party, and that performing administrative tasks does not per se render a representative non-independent.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy challenged Purple Innovation's '733 Patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board has instituted the IPR proceedings, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the challenger on at least one claim.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
Nord Lock Ab v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were infringing two registered patents related to the manufacture of washers. The court issued notice and directed that if the defendants file a suit challenging the validity or non-infringement of these patents, it must be done within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Nokia Of America Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Nokia appealed the rejection of its patent application, arguing that the respondent's order failed to properly discuss the invention and how it was hit by obviousness. The court found that the Controller merely concluded that a person skilled in the art could calculate technical glitches using prior arts without adequately testing them against the claimed invention.
Castrol Limited v.Kapil & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction to Castrol Limited in its suit against Kapil & Anr., allowing the plaintiff to proceed with an ex-parte local commission. The court recognized that the defendants were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit engine oils, infringing on Castrol's trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights related to their packaging. This order permits a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence of infringement.
V.Sundaresan & Ors. v.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.
The Madras High Court addressed multiple appeals and petitions concerning a trademark infringement dispute over the 'Varalakshmi' brand name used for sago/sabudana products. Recognizing the overlap between the appellate issues and the main suit, the Court directed the Commercial Court to expedite the original trademark suit within 16 weeks. Crucially, while vacating previous stays on proceedings, the High Court ensured that the existing interim order from the lower court would remain in effect until the final judgment of the main suit.
M/s.Babu Ram Om Prakash v.A.Manickavel
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition concerning the rectification of Trade Mark No. 502558 after both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The petition, which had been transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, was settled amicably between M/s. Babu Ram Om Prakash and A. Manickavel. This resolution allows the matter to be closed without further judicial intervention.
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL appealed against an impugned order dated February 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original order refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 1908/DELNP/2015, citing lack of full disclosure and technical advancement. The High Court noted the submissions and directed parties to file replies.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a patent application (No. 6134/DELNP/2015). The rejection was based on the alleged lack of inventive constructional features and failure to meet novelty and inventive step criteria. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.