Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 8901–9000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s IPR challenge against DexCom's glucose monitoring patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation and obviousness grounds over prior art reference Gross, despite acknowledging examination complexity. This decision advances Abbott's efforts to invalidate key claims in the medical device space.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB that its biometric authentication claims were not obvious over prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung Electronics challenged Maxell's touch interface security patent (8982086), arguing obviousness over prior art including Rogers and Rosenberg. The PTAB found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for several claims, leading to the institution of the IPR and granting trial on specific claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's IPR challenge against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND Flash patents, finding insufficient evidence to prove obviousness over the cited prior art (Seo and Choi).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron Technology's request for rehearing after institution was previously denied on claims of the NAND Flash patent 11,600,342. The Board found that Petitioner failed to provide objective evidence demonstrating how prior art references inherently teach fast charge removal.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 29 challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art. The Board found that Burger teaches limitations of Claim 1 across various transaction types, and combining Burger with Robinson or Orsini renders dependent claims obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.
Dharmaj Technologies v.Mac Swin Technologies
Dharmaj Technologies filed a suit against Mac Swin Technologies alleging infringement and passing off related to its Registered Design No. 253469, which pertains to a diamond processing machine. The dispute centered on the defendant's manufacturing and sale of machines bearing identical or obvious imitations of the plaintiff's design. Following an undertaking by the defendant discontinuing the use of the impugned design, the court allowed the suit to the extent of granting permanent injunctions against future infringement.
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited filed an appeal against the impugned order dated December 18, 2023, which rejected its patent application No. 20201711947 due to non-appearance on a scheduled hearing date. The appellant sought remand for hearing and condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
M.Anees Ahmed (M/s.Ambur Star Briyani) v.Star Briyani
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by M.Anees Ahmed concerning the alleged misuse of his trade name, "Ambur Star Briyani," by the defendant, "Star Briyani." The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against infringement and passing-off, as well as a declaration that his mark is a 'well-known mark.' The court examined the long history and extensive public recognition of the plaintiff's brand, which traces its origins back to 1890. While the judgment details the claims for relief, it appears to be an interim or procedural order given the lack of detailed findings on merits in the provided excerpt, setting the stage for further litigation.
Shrinath Travel Agency & Anr. v.Maventech Labs Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Shrinath Travel Agency against Maventech Labs Private Limited and others. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were deceptively adopting their registered trademarks ('SHRINATH') and associated marks in the tour and travel industry, including through identical domain names. The court found a prima facie case was made out, noting that balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs, leading to immediate restraint on the use of infringing marks and websites until the final hearing.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Om Prakash Gupta
In a case concerning the infringement of trademarks and copyrights, Tata Sons sought judicial assistance to manage seized counterfeit products. The Delhi High Court granted the application, appointing a Local Commissioner to visit the warehouse where 624 packages of fake TATA TEA PREMIUM were stored. This order allows Plaintiffs to draw samples for trial purposes while also granting them liberty to destroy the remaining inventory, ensuring the chain of custody is maintained.
Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
In this trademark dispute before the Delhi High Court, Disposafe Health And Life Care Limited sought clarification on the service status of a hearing notice related to their application. While the Registrar of Trade Marks cited database records indicating successful notice dispatch, the appellant argued that the portal did not confirm actual service. The court granted the appellant liberty to file an affidavit to substantiate their claim regarding the lack of service confirmation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against Manking Pharmaceutical Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case based on the phonetic similarity between the 'MANKIND' mark and the defendant's adopted variations, as well as the use of a deceptively similar logo device. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted suspicious corporate links, suggesting the defendant was incorporated by an ex-employee to dishonestly adopt the protected brand identity.
Pluto Travels India Private Limited v.Ptw Holidays Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pluto Travels against Ptw Holidays. The court allowed several procedural requests, including condonation of delay and exemptions from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court noted the plaintiff's claim regarding the use of the identical mark 'PLUTO' for travel services and directed service of notice on the defendant concerning the injunction request, setting a date for further hearing.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserts is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The defendants raised an exhaustion defense, contending that some accused embodiments incorporate Qualcomm chips and that Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm covers its Wi-Fi 6 standard patents. The defendants applied for an order requiring Huawei to produce the Qualcomm license agreement, along with coercive penalties for non-compliance, while Huawei opposed production citing US court restrictions and alternatively sought confidentiality protections.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against European Patent EP 3 876 690, owned by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG, before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of its appeal against the rejection of a Preliminary Objection and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the request was a delay tactic. The Court set new dates for the interim conference (19 July 2024) and oral hearing (25 September 2024).
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s 11,707,033 corn plant patent, arguing it is an obvious copy of earlier varieties. The petition seeks Director review to correct the Board’s alleged legal error.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request to review the PTAB's denial of institution for Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed‑technology patent, leaving the denial in place.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
RJ Machine Company has filed an opening petition challenging Schneider’s connector apparatus patent (9851030). The petitioner argues that the claimed union nut connectors are conventional and obvious, citing prior art from the oil and gas industry. This challenge targets multiple grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,151 held by 3Shape A/S. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to dental shade determination are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103).
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by RJ Machine Company against Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG. The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), particularly concerning the means-plus-function claim construction of 'sealing means.'
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp.'s IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the challenge of numerous claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with challenging key features related to vehicle profile management and cloud services.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that dismissed his opposition against a trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have been granted six weeks to file their reply and subsequent rejoinder.
Zydus Healthcare Limited v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed concerns raised by Zydus Healthcare regarding counterfeit goods sold on Flipkart. While acknowledging that e-commerce platforms have mechanisms in place, the court highlighted critical procedural flaws, particularly concerning seller onboarding, GST misuse, and product identification (FSN). The judgment mandates Flipkart to investigate these issues, provide specific documentation like bank details, and implement technical solutions to prevent genuine sellers from being unfairly de-listed.
Bic Cello India Private Limited v.Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain
Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 24. April 2024 concerning EP 3430921 KEYWORDS: Rule 262 RoP request REFERENCE CODE ECLI: not provided APPLICANT Nicoventures Trading Limited, Globe House, 1 Water S
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
Powerhouse Licensing LLC. v.Anand Rai
Powerhouse Licensing LLC successfully secured an interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Respondent No. 1 regarding a conflicting trademark registration for 'POWERHOUSE GYM'. The court found that the Petitioner holds prior, famous, and well-known rights to the mark, making the impugned registration prima facie liable to be cancelled or rectified. This initial victory allows the Petitioners to prevent any misuse of their brand while the full legal proceedings continue.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd v.M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills against M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd. The case, which involved allegations of passing off regarding the 'JINDAL' mark, was resolved through mediation and a subsequent settlement agreement. The court upheld the compromise decree, ensuring that while the parties remain bound by the terms, the specific details of the confidential settlement will not be disclosed in the public record.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (as defendants in the main infringement action) requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce, given the complexity of US recognition procedures for foreign judgments. The applications sought security of EUR 200,000 each, or alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond to the claim.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1 filed applications requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce. The applications sought EUR 200,000 each in security, alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in the context of an application for provisional measures. The court addressed the language of proceedings after the Court of Appeal changed the language from German to English just two weeks before the final order was due. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the final order may be issued in German with a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delay.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications by the defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) requesting security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US company. The applicants sought security of EUR 200,000 each under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any cost order against NST in the United States would be difficult, lengthy, and expensive due to the state-by-state exequatur requirements. The applications were filed in connection with the main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 relating to integrated circuits and methods for establishing transactions.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
Optimedica Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Optimedica Corporation appealed a rejection order dated 12.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that the subject matter did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal to proceed by remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the amended claims.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v.Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
Punam Flutes v.Mahesh Chand Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v.M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L.P seeking to remove an alleged infringing trademark, 'CLUB LINE BY CLASSIC POLO,' registered under No. 1236106 in Class 25. However, the court noted that the first respondent (M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited) had already filed a formal application (TM-P dated 22.04.2024) to cancel this specific trademark registration. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition, confirming that the objective of the petitioner was achieved through the action taken by the respondent.
Mayfair Lighting Llp v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Mayfair Lighting Llp, overturning an earlier decision that had deemed their trademark opposition abandoned. The court found that the original timeline for filing evidence was flawed due to issues with service of the counter-statement by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the registration of the mark 'LONDON MAY FAIR' in favor of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled, and the opposition proceedings were restored.
Cosmetic Warriors Limited v.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Cosmetic Warriors Limited against Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding the trademark 'BIOMIC SCIENCE'. The court accepted the argument that despite registering the mark in 2012, the first respondent had failed to put it to substantial use in commerce. Consequently, the registration entry was rectified and removed.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf addresses whether Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a simple licensee and parent company of the patent holder Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., may intervene in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening because a successful revocation counterclaim would retroactively nullify the patent, stripping the licensee of its preferential position over non-licensees. Since the Local Chamber decided to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together, the licensee was permitted to intervene in the entire dispute, not just in the revocation counterclaim.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health Corporation initiated an IPR against Slyde Analytics, LLC regarding a smartwatch patent, asserting obviousness under 103. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references to demonstrate that the claimed features were predictable applications of routine technology in wearable displays.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed traffic speed detection features are predictable combinations of existing prior art references.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Garmin Ltd. challenges the validity of Clyde Analytics' '033 Patent in an IPR proceeding, asserting that all 19 claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references. The petition details multiple grounds combining Mooring and Satoshi with additional references like Lee, Louch, and Tam to demonstrate unpatentability.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for 15 claims in a traffic radar system patent (11,194,039) after finding the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving obviousness over prior art references like Aker and Thomas.
Baskar v.G. Raghu Babu
The plaintiff, who holds a registered industrial design for a 'Forklift Vehicle,' sought an injunction against the respondent, alleging imitation and infringement. The respondents contended that the design was not unique, as it involved attaching a forklift to a conventional tractor already used in agriculture, and their activities were merely assisting farmers. The High Court set aside the ad-interim injunction.
Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited v.M/S Savera Eats
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited against M/S Savera Eats. The Petitioner sought injunctions against the Respondent for continuing to use the registered 'BURGER SINGH' trademarks after a franchise agreement had been terminated. Given the alleged ongoing infringement and reputational damage, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of all infringing materials at the Respondent's premises.
Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. v.Ss Enterprises
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Lt Foods Ltd & Anr. against Ss Enterprises regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to rice products. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, noting the defendant was distributing empty packaging filled with non-plaintiff's grains. This immediate relief prevents further damage while the main suit proceeds, underscoring the court's willingness to protect established brands against counterfeiting.
HL Klemove Corporation v.Foras Technologies Limited
HL Klemove and Foras Technologies have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 7,502,958, citing settlement and the lack of any merits decision. The Board is expected to grant the motion under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Apple was granted a PTAB order instituting inter partes review of all 20 claims of the ‘289 patent and joining the ongoing Google IPR. The Board found the petition identical to the earlier Google filing and approved joinder without adding new grounds.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,646,042 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to end the proceeding on grounds of settlement and judicial economy.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00777, leaving the institution of Maxell's patent 11,017,815 B2 in place.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR on Patent 10,073,960. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business‑confidential under §317(b).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung, arguing the Board ignored Fintiv factors and misapplied §314(a) after a guidance memo was rescinded. The petition highlights parallel district‑court litigation and requests denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell argues Samsung’s IPR petition should be denied because the prior‑art references are duplicate or cumulative and discretionary factors favor denial, given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung opposes Maxell’s request to overturn the PTAB’s final written decision, asserting no inconsistency in expert testimony and accusing Maxell of strategic gamesmanship. The Board’s earlier findings remain unchallenged.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan settled with Foras Technologies, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 7,502,958. The Board granted the termination and sealed the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR over Proxense’s Bluetooth proximity patent.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung seeks Director review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision finding Maxell’s claims unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored Samsung’s narrow “character” construction used in a district‑court jury trial. The Board denied the request, leaving the unpatentability findings in place.
ZF Friedrichshafen AG et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
ZF Friedrichshafen, its affiliates, and Nissan have jointly moved to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to withdraw the IPR against Foras Technologies’ U.S. Patent 7,502,958.