Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8801–8900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition for NJOY against JUUL Labs, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found insufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references across multiple claims.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas Inc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenges the Assistant Controller's order dated January 23, 2024, which rejected Appellant's patent application (No. 6956/DELNP/2014) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request and directed parties to file written submissions.
Cassiopea Spa v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cassiopea Spa filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 655/DELNP/2010) under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court granted condonation of delay and set out directions for further proceedings in the appeal.
Dark Brown Through Proprietor v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a petition filed by Dark Brown Through Proprietor alleging trademark infringement by Respondent No. 6, noting that local police authorities had failed to act on the petitioner's complaint. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim itself, the court issued a directive compelling Respondents No. 2 and 3 (police/authorities) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within two months. This order serves as an administrative nudge to ensure timely action against alleged IP violations.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Keestrack N.V. v.Respondent
Keestrack N.V., the claimant and patent holder of EP3713672, filed a request to withdraw its patent infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Local Division The Hague, with the defendant's consent. The defendant experienced technical difficulties with the digital case management system (CMS) that delayed its formal response, though it had submitted its consent by email on the original deadline. The court accepted the late CMS filing as timely given the email submission and granted the withdrawal request.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references Demircin and Kimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung also addresses discretionary denial provisions of the AIA.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. successfully instituted an IPR against Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC regarding a semiconductor verification patent (7603636). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over multiple combinations of prior art references under 103.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns two generic applications (App_19959/2024 and App_23242/2024) lodged in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after the closing of the written procedure, proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The claimant Meril Italy srl submitted comments leaving the admission decision to the Court's discretion while requesting additional time to file an additional defence if the amendment was admitted. The presiding judge addressed the Court's discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP regarding the admission of subsequent requests to amend a patent after the written procedure has closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat) in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after a previous amendment application had been rejected and after the closing of the written procedure. The Court recognized its discretionary authority to admit such a subsequent amendment request, provided that the claimant's right to defence was preserved through the possibility of filing an additional defence if the amendment was admitted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, plaintiff in a standard-essential patent infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315, sought a court production order directed against itself to compel the disclosure of two specific license agreements. The plaintiff argued that confidentiality clauses in those agreements prevented voluntary production, and that its license partners had either failed to respond or refused consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order providing fundamental guidance on the requirements for production orders in standard-essential patent disputes, following the Reporting Judge's prior directions of March 19, 2024 and the plaintiff's responsive statement of April 15, 2024.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This order concerns an application by Carrier Corporation seeking review of a decision by the judge-rapporteur regarding the admissibility of patent amendments in revocation proceedings. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier Corporation filed a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent, some of which related to non-attacked claims. The Court held that a request to amend a patent must refer only to claims that have been challenged, rendering amendments to unchallenged claims inadmissible.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. brought a claim against Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf. The court issued an order on 30 April 2024 concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP, following oral proceedings held on 26 March 2024. The order addresses several key legal questions, including the presumption of entitlement to be registered as patent proprietor, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the applicability of security for costs in urgent proceedings.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB for permission to file a reply brief in its post‑grant review against GOMACO, citing alleged mischaracterizations and new arguments by the petitioner. The request emphasizes good cause and a rapid turnaround.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied GOMACO's request for a review of the institution decision in a post‑grant review of patent 11,772,723, leaving the institution in place.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Gomaco urges the PTAB Director to deny G&Z’s review request, arguing that the Board’s obviousness finding for the ’318 slipform paver patent is fully supported by the CIII and Rio prior art. The petitioner contends no claim construction is needed and that the Board’s reasoning is adequate.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of its ‘723 slipform paver patent. The petition alleges obviousness over the CIII manual, Rio and Files patents, and a lack of written description for a transducer placement. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation successfully challenged Guntert & Zimmerman's patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found that the Petitioner persuasively demonstrated Office error by failing to adequately consider relevant prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron successfully established the unpatentability of five claims (15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala. The Board found that various embodiments in the prior art taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
UPL Limited v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Ors
UPL Limited appealed a decision by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to proceed with its patent application (No. 1378/KOL/2013). The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural flaws, specifically the failure to address expert affidavits and critical technical submissions. The Court set aside the impugned order based on admissions made by the authorities in their affidavit in opposition.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Green Gold Animation Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Green Gold Animation Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the abandonment of opposition proceedings related to the 'MIGHTY RAJU' device mark. The High Court was asked to restore the opposition and allow the applicant to file a counter statement. However, the appellant subsequently conveyed instructions that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Marico Limited v.Bayer AG
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark cancellation petition filed by Marico Limited against Bayer AG. The court noted that despite delays in execution due to one signatory being in Germany, the parties had reached a full settlement regarding the trademark No. 1296206. Consequently, the original petition was closed, and both parties were directed to file a formal memo of settlement with the Registry.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
M/s Munjal Showa Limited v.M/s Star India Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a batch of petitions concerning the rectification and removal of several trademarks, including 'MANJAL.' The court accepted the first respondent's affidavit stating that some trademarks had expired and others were not being put to use despite renewal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the first respondent to initiate necessary cancellation applications before the Trade Marks Registry within a specified timeframe.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the procedural language from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the request and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in English from the date of the order.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory's patent 11,468,957. The Board’s original findings remain in effect.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that held claims 1‑6 of its 3D‑NAND memory patent unpatentable. The petition argues the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and misapplied the non‑obviousness analysis to prior art references Hongtao and Seo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review challenges the PTAB’s rejection of its obviousness arguments against Yangtze Memory’s NAND flash verification patent. The Board found Micron’s evidence insufficient and its arguments conclusory, leading to a denial of the review request.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
Trove Brands has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,905,252 held by Camelbak Products, LLC, concerning drink container cap assemblies. The petition asserts multiple grounds of unpatentability, primarily relying on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Trove Brands utilizes various prior art references, including Samartgis, Leoncavallo, Miller, Gorskey, and Johnson.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Trove Brands against CamelBak's patent 8905252, finding that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability over Samartgis and Leoncavallo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims related to 3D-NAND memory operation, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its challenges regarding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.
Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed both its infringement action and its application for provisional measures concerning European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the court lacked competence due to an opt-out. The central issue on appeal was whether the two-month appeal period under R.220.1(a) RoP or the fifteen-day period under R.220.1(c) RoP applied. The Court of Appeal held the appeal admissible, finding that the ambiguity in the rules and the incorrect information provided by the Court of First Instance justified applying the longer two-month period, while extending the respondent's time to respond to three months.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.