Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8601–8700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India
Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
STAÛBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.***
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 concerning a method for controlling the speed and positioning of a tool change carriage. In response to prior art documents submitted with the nullity action, the patent proprietors disclaimed the patent, rendering the main case moot under Rule 360. The court addressed the cost allocation, holding that it would generally be inequitable to impose costs on the patent proprietor who immediately disclaims the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity complaint.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns the defendants' application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3096315. The defendants, OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., sought production of various license agreements (including those designated 'X' and 'Y') that the plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation relied upon as reference points in FRAND negotiations, as well as other 3G/4G SEP license agreements. The order was issued by the presiding and reporting judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim, addressing the procedural status of the production requests following the plaintiff's unredacted submissions on the FRAND aspect.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patents, specifically concerning distributor plates and turbo tips compatible with SANDVIK VSI crushers. After initial ex parte orders, the matter was disposed of at a summary stage upon concession by the defendant regarding the injunction.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Jamboree Resorts India Llp & Anr. v.Mehul Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Jamboree Resorts India LLP, who holds registered trademarks for 'JAMBOREE'. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, who were operating the resort under the name 'SIGNUM JAMBOREE CREEK RESORT' following a terminated revenue-sharing agreement. The order restrained the use of the infringing mark and mandated the handover of all associated digital assets to allow the plaintiffs to regain control.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v.Pahal Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the packaging and trade dress of coconut cookies, Bonn Nutrients sought an injunction against Pahal Foods for alleged infringement. The Delhi High Court issued an order facilitating an amicable settlement between the parties. Defendants agreed not to manufacture any more products under the disputed label/packaging but were granted time to exhaust their existing stock of 15,000 cases. Both parties were also directed toward mediation and listed for further consideration.
Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd v.Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd against Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while formally registering the plaint as a commercial suit. Crucially, regarding the injunction application seeking to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'ABBA HUZUR' on rice products, the Court issued notice to the defendant.
M/S. Lotus Organic Care v.M/S. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Lotus Organic Care, setting aside a lower court's rejection of its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core issue was whether the petitioner had made sufficient prima facie pleadings in their written statement to warrant staying the infringement suit while they pursued trademark rectification. The High Court held that the trial court only needs to record prima facie satisfaction based on the pleadings, not evaluate the evidence for the eventual rectification application. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed, allowing the petitioner to proceed with challenging the validity of the respondent's trademarks.
Belkin Limited , Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc v.Respondent
This is a purely administrative procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the scheduling of hearings. The Reporter scheduled an interim hearing for September 11, 2024, and postponed the previously scheduled oral hearing from July 11, 2024 to October 23, 2024. No substantive legal arguments or claims were addressed in the order.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC, which sued five Motorola/Lenovo-related entities for patent infringement. Defendants 3 and 4 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline from May 13, 2024 to May 17, 2024 to align with the deadline applicable to Defendants 1 and 2. The defendants argued that aligning the different opposition deadlines would simplify the proper preparation and coordination of their briefs for reasons of procedural economy.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This order concerns an application by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as 'Bioo'), the Defendant in the main infringement proceedings, for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The application relates to Exhibits GP36 and GP39 and specific paragraphs of Bioo's rejoinder in an infringement action brought by Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V. concerning European Patent EP2137782. Bioo sought a confidentiality regime restricting use of the redacted information to the main infringement proceedings and limiting access to one natural person at Plant-e with a legitimate interest, along with penalty payments for any breach.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Castrol Limited v.Mohan Bajya
In a significant move against alleged counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited. The court recognized the substantial goodwill associated with Castrol's trademarks and trade dress for engine oils. To enforce this urgent relief, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods manufactured by the defendant, Mohan Bajya, and inspect relevant financial records.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Milan, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Indian defendant Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addressed the conduct of an interim conference previously scheduled for May 27, 2024, balancing the principle of transparency and public access to judicial proceedings against the parties' right to protection of confidential information. The court ordered that the parties file summaries of points to be discussed, that the conference be open to the public unless confidential matters arose, and that the proceedings be recorded.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 of the Rules of Procedure.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns three interlocutory applications filed by the defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) in proceedings brought by Ballinno B.V. regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants sought an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs of at least €200,000, an adjustment of the value in dispute to €2,000,000, and the allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel. The defendants argued that Ballinno, a Dutch company with unpaid issued capital of EUR 1 and no known assets other than the patent in suit, was unlikely to be able to reimburse litigation costs.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 872/DELNP/2011) for 'Crop Safeners' by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The primary objection was the lack of specification regarding the ratio of constituents and novelty issues. The High Court found that the suggested amendments could address the non-specification issue and remanded the application for a fresh hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying price information in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings against multiple Hanshow entities. The key legal principle established was that patent claim features must always be interpreted in the light of the entire claim.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Devender Kumar
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 3841841 related to a suspo-emulsion of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The parties mutually resolved their disputes and agreed to a compromise.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications in the patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and others. The court disposed of the application seeking exemption from mediation and dismissed the application filed by Defendant No. 5 seeking deletion from the array of parties, affirming that all defendants are necessary for the dispute.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
The defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 filed a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing lawsuits. The claimants (respondents to the preliminary objection) countered that the standstill agreement did not affect the court's jurisdiction and that they had complied with the notice period. The Court of First Instance rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes
The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The court addressed the defendants' requests to modify a provisional confidentiality order governing the production of documents. The court granted most modifications, including expanding the definition of legal representatives, increasing the number of reliable persons from one to three, removing the return/destruction obligation, adjusting the penalty provision to require culpability, and cleaning up duplicated obligations.
TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_498/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 057 321 delivered on 09/05/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 22/12/2023 TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.
WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated
This case concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded with respect to certain time periods, embodiments, and damages claims. Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation, and alternatively requested splitting off proceedings related to UK territory acts.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by the Applicants (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments challenged the court's jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and requests pursuant to rules 19 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Huawei Technologies for a production order against itself and a confidentiality order in proceedings alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei claims is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. Huawei sought to introduce into the proceedings a license agreement it concluded with Amazon on March 5, 2024, regarding its Wi-Fi patent portfolio, arguing that court-ordered confidentiality protection was necessary. The defendants, NETGEAR entities, were defending in part on the basis of an antitrust compulsory license (FRAND) defense. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur of the Munich Local Chamber.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns preliminary objections and requests filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH in an infringement action brought by Network System Technologies LLC concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 (integrated circuit and method for establishing transactions). Volkswagen and Audi sought dismissal of the infringement action as inadmissible, inconclusive, or manifestly unfounded, while Texas Instruments sought a declaration that the court lacks international jurisdiction over claims related to the patent's United Kingdom designation. The Local Division in Munich issued the order on 8 May 2024 addressing these preliminary objections and rule 361 RoP requests.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of RapidPulse’s ’883 aspiration‑thrombectomy patent are unpatentable after finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 21 claims of RapidPulse’s ’253 aspiration thrombectomy patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over Teigen, Grey and other prior art. Penumbra’s petition succeeded, leading to a sweeping invalidation.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra challenges RapidPulse's patent covering aspiration thrombectomy systems, arguing that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner relies heavily on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate a motivation for a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) to make the modifications.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
Penumbra successfully petitioned to institute IPR against RapidPulse regarding claims related to aspiration thrombectomy systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across multiple grounds, including combinations involving Yang and Mullins.
Penumbra, Inc. v.RapidPulse, Inc.
The PTAB rejected Petitioner's obviousness arguments against the '402 patent claims (1-20) related to a thrombectomy/aspiration system. The Board adopted an intrinsic definition of 'predetermined cycle' as fixed timing, finding that prior art combining Mullins and Yang did not teach this limitation.
E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product NIVOLUMAB, marketed as OPDYTA in India. The defendant is attempting to process a biosimilar version of the plaintiff's drug.
Manish Vanigota v.Commissioner of Customs Nagpur
The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of goods and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur. The case involved various consignments containing prohibited items, including those infringing intellectual property rights, cosmetics, and pharmaceutical products. The Tribunal set aside several penalties, finding that the adjudicating authority failed to elaborate on the specific prescriptions violated.
Guala Closures Spa v.Agi Greenpac Limited
Guala Closures Spa filed a suit seeking enforcement of its patent rights against Agi Greenpac Limited, alleging infringement by the latter's 'Voila Closure.' The Plaintiff holds Patent No. 349522 for a tamper-evident closure with a two-level tear-off seal mechanism. The court examined the prima facie case regarding infringement and the necessity of an interim injunction. Ultimately, the Court found that the triple test for granting an injunction was not met, favoring the Defendants' business interests at this preliminary stage.
Greenlam Industries Limited v.Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Greenlam Industries Limited against Greenland Particle Boards Private Limited. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and granted various applications related to filing documents and time extensions. Crucially, the court directed that summons be issued to the defendant, initiating the formal trial process for the claim of trademark infringement based on the use of similar marks like 'GREENLAND' and 'ZOHA GREENLAND'.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination saves resources and aligns with public‑policy goals.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of a PTAB decision, contending that BOE’s undisclosed state‑linked controller violates RPI requirements. The petition cites recent Director policy that makes such omissions fatal. The request seeks vacatur of the decision and termination of the IPR.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple has filed a request for rehearing, arguing that the PTAB abused its discretion in instituting an IPR on patent 10,547,648. The owners claim the Board relied on unmapped prior art and misread claim language.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR over Nokia's wireless‑technology patent and jointly request that the settlement documents be kept confidential, asking the PTAB to terminate the proceeding.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation into OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board is asked to end the case under statutory settlement provisions.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,950,469, leading to a joint motion that terminated four related inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Apple Inc. v.S.M.R Innovations LTD et al.
Apple seeks Director review to overturn a PTAB decision that found its HomeRF‑based cellular‑call routing patent obvious. The Patent Owners contend the Board introduced a new adaptation rationale not raised by Apple, violating procedural rules.