Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9101–9200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones files a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s finding of privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics, arguing the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution and dismissal of the IPR against Zaxcom’s ’902 patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition challenging Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The petitioner contends that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics filed a corrected request for Director Review to fix a citation error and seek dismissal of an IPR against Zaxcom’s patent. No substantive changes were made to the original arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious or anticipated over prior art such as Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with narrower substitute claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Zaxcom's microphone patent (7,929,902). The institution rulings therefore remain in force.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Director Review requests have been filed for three IPRs involving Rode Microphones and Zaxcom’s wireless microphone patent. Rode must respond within five business days with a brief, issue‑limited filing.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones’ request for Director Review of the vacated institution and dismissal of IPR2025‑00231 involving Zaxcom’s patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet successfully secured institution in this IPR against LifeNet Health's '223 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims related to collagen scaffolds with specific FFT analysis characteristics are unpatentable over prior art references like Huang2 and Lee.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB Institute Decision granted trial for Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics against Zaxcom regarding wireless audio recording systems. The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural hurdles related to parallel district court litigation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR institution against Zaxcom's audio recording patents, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that the combination of Strub and Woo renders the claimed synchronization methods obvious under § 103.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i.
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and was brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against six defendants, including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The dispute centers on the language of proceedings, with the plaintiffs having chosen German. Defendants 2 and 6 filed an objection under Rule 19.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure, seeking a change to English, arguing that German is only the official language of one defendant and that English would be less burdensome for all parties. The order was issued by Judge Dr. Thom as Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf.
SVF Holdco v.ICPillar LLC
In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the EU. Hence the only requirements to be met are: 1) the multiple defendants have a commercial relationship, 2) the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The requirement of a “commercial relationsh
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s sur‑reply argues TCL’s IPR petition re‑uses prior art, shows no material error, and fails claim‑construction arguments, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike's 8,266,749 footwear knitting patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art knitting references. The petition seeks cancellation of 19 claims.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike's footwear knitting patent survived Skechers' IPR challenge. The Board found no unpatentable claims after rejecting the obviousness arguments based on Reed and Nishida references.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell opposes TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,219,020, arguing the prior art does not teach key claim limitations and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Petitioner Aardevo North America filed a Director Review request in IPR2025-00136 concerning patent 11140841 owned by Agventure B.V. The Board has invited the patent owner to submit a brief, five‑page response limited to the issues raised.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL Electronics' IPR, arguing the petitioner's single ground is cumulative, lacks material error, and fails claim‑construction analysis. The owner contends the Board should reject institution.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Nike successfully defended its footwear patent against Skechers’ request for Director Review of a denied IPR institution. The Board affirmed the denial under §325(d), finding Skechers’ arguments unpersuasive.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America’s request for director review of its petition to institute an IPR against Agventure’s potato‑breeding patent. The Board held that the petitioner’s reliance on physical products violated statutory limits and that it failed to rebut secondary considerations of non‑obviousness.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
The PTAB denied Aardevo North America's request for Director Review of the earlier decision denying institution of IPR2025-00136 covering patent 11,140,841. The petition was dismissed without further action.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America challenges Agventure's 2021 potato hybrid seed patent, asserting that all ten claims are anticipated or obvious based on decades of prior art. The petition lists nine grounds covering anticipation and obviousness over publications dating back to 1971. No secondary considerations are offered.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of Maxell’s U.S. Pat. 10,219,020, seeking to invalidate claims covering a display apparatus controlled by a mobile terminal. The petition relies on Bennett and Nashida prior‑art references combined with POSITA knowledge to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Maxell’s U.S. Patent 10,650,780 covering a display apparatus that uses USB and wireless LAN. The petition relies on the Lawther prior‑art reference to argue obviousness of claims 1‑11, 13, and 15‑20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
TCL Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Maxell’s 10,375,341 patent covering a multi‑user video display system, asserting that all four claims are obvious over the Acharya prior‑art publication.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB institution of IPR2025-00141, filed by Skechers against Nike, moves forward to challenge the patent's validity on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing after vacating an initial discretionary denial.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution of Inter Partes Review for Skechers against Nike regarding a footwear patent (9730484). The Board determined that Skechers met the threshold by showing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references like Dua and Hong.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The Director granted review and vacated the denial of institution in a Nike patent dispute, remanding the case to the Board. The decision hinged on prior IPR findings showing an apparent material error regarding the Nishida reference.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
The PTAB denied Skechers' petition for IPR against Nike, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error regarding prior art already considered by the Examiner. This decision reinforces the strict application of the Advanced Bionics standard in discretionary denial proceedings.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB denied TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.'s request to institute IPR against Maxell, Ltd.'s display apparatus patent. The denial was based on the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and the petitioner's relative lateness in filing.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The Director vacated the institution decision in a dispute involving TCL and Maxell, denying the IPR based on an error in weighing discretionary factors. The denial relates to patent 10375341.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for TCL Electronics against Maxell regarding a video display patent. The Board found that the Petitioner presented a strong challenge based on prior art Acharya, despite parallel district court litigation.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR against Proxense because a related review of the same patent had already been instituted in another proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
Apple Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Proxense, LLC’s patent claims were obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references (Dua, Giobbi '157, Kotola). The Board found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Autostore Sp. z o.o., Autostore System GmbH, Autostore System AT GmbH, Autostore System AB, Autostore System S.L, Autostore System Srl, Autostore AS, Autostore S.A.S.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Ocado Innovation Limited against an order of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division granting a member of the public access to the statement of claim in underlying infringement proceedings against multiple Autostore entities. The Court held that the Court of Appeal could validly sit in a composition of three legally qualified judges under Article 9(1) UPCA when only non-technical issues were in dispute. It further held that requests for public access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP require a balancing of the public interest against the interests protected under Article 45 UPCA, and that access could be granted even where proceedings had ended by settlement.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Trina Solar, Evervolt and petitioners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,722,104, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG petitions the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR filed by Integrated DNA Technologies, arguing the Panel misapplied expert testimony and misread the Meyer prior art. The request also cites policy concerns over multiple overlapping petitions.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB denied Integrated DNA Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving Tecan Group's patents, leaving the institution rulings in place.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies filed an authorized response to the PTAB Director’s review request, defending the institution of an IPR against its DNA‑sequencing patents. The petitioner argues the Board acted within policy, relied properly on the Meyer reference, and did not abuse discretion.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
IDT has filed an IPR petition challenging Tecan’s ’108 NGS library‑preparation patent, asserting that the Meyer publication anticipates most claims and that the remaining claims are obvious. The petition also argues against discretionary denial.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials petitions an IPR against SK nexilis’s 9,457,541 copper‑foil patent, asserting that claims 1‑4 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition cites Fintiv and Advanced Bionics factors to argue for institution.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition against claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, finding that the combination of prior art references did not render the copper foil obvious. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success when combining properties from materially different sources.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied by the PTAB, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis's copper foil patent.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over combinations of prior art, specifically involving Chang and Jin for isolation regions in solar cells.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201717045317 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the refusal erroneously applied the test of inventive step, failing to recognize the technical advancement and substantial differences in the claimed invention compared to prior art.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited appealed against an order dismissing its writ petition, which challenged the post-grant opposition proceedings against its patent IN387429. The dispute centered on whether the original Opposition Board had adequately considered expert evidence before submitting its recommendation to revoke the patent.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal clarifies the date of service of the appeal documents in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and several Xiaomi entities regarding EP 3 611 989. Xiaomi requested confirmation that service of the appeal occurred on April 3, 2024, with the response deadline expiring on April 18, 2024, or alternatively an extension of the response deadline. The order addresses the application of Rules 270 to 279 of the Rules of Procedure regarding service in appeal proceedings.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, issued in proceedings for provisional measures. The applicant Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought interim relief against the respondents Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH. The order sets out key legal principles regarding patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, the timing of filing provisional measure requests, the treatment of late submissions, cost decisions in interim proceedings, and the requirement for security in case of revocation of provisional measures.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argues that this section is contrary to Section 11A(7) because it restricts patent subsistence based on the date of application rather than the date of publication. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and res judicata before adjourning the matter for arguments on merits.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr. The court directed the Respondent to file additional documents demonstrating that the Petitioner was simultaneously seeking rectification of the impugned trademark 'CUREKIND' before the Trademark Registry. Furthermore, the hearing was adjourned to September 2nd, 2024, allowing both parties time to submit composite briefs.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. against Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'FAIRMONT', had made out a prima facie case for infringement. This order specifically restrains the defendant from using 'FAIRMONT' or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their hotel properties, including the disputed 'OCTAVE FAIRMONT SUITES'. The ruling underscores the immediate protection available to brand owners against unauthorized use of their trademarks.
Mittal Electronic Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.
AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) to access an expert report generated following ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders against AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.a. The inspection orders, granted in September 2023 in connection with alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230, were executed in October 2023, but the resulting expert reports were kept in sealed envelopes. PMA sought access to the reports to evaluate whether to commence proceedings on the merits, arguing that confidentiality obligations prevented its representatives from disclosing the findings.
Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders And Anr
Mohd Shakir filed a petition seeking rectification of an artistic work titled 'MYA', which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner claimed that the impugned registration belonging to Gopal Traders copied an earlier artwork owned by a third party in Lebanon and had prior international trademark registrations for 'MYA'. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that copyright registration is only prima facie evidence of particulars entered therein. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's own conflicting assertions regarding ownership in previous opposition proceedings, ultimately upholding the validity of the existing registration.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Indian Patent No. 235625, which was held to be prima facie invalid by co-ordinate benches of the court.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prime Diamond Tech & Ors.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd challenged a trial court order that allowed its former employees, who formed Prime Diamond Tech, to continue their business activities despite allegations of copyright infringement. The appellant claimed that the respondents were using proprietary drawings and confidential information related to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) machines for diamond coloring. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim of a proprietary right is purely a question of fact requiring expert evidence during trial, and thus, no prima facie case warranted an injunction.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The court addressed arguments concerning the maintainability of a writ petition related to the deletion of an amendment in five patent claims. The court noted similar pending decisions on this issue and allowed the interlocutory application (I.A.) to proceed, considering the counter claim filed by the defendant.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Abdul Rehman & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application in a trademark infringement suit brought by Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. The court accepted the Plaintiff's claim regarding the established goodwill associated with 'FAIRMONT' and 'THE FAIRMONT'. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease using the infringing device mark and domain name 'www.fairmontin.in', leading the Court to grant a temporary injunction and a four-week period for implementation of the changes. The court also extended these directions to Defendants No. 2 and 3.
Castrol Limited v.Vikas Mishra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited against Vikas Mishra regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement. The court found a prima facie case based on the similarity between Castrol's established global brand and the defendant's use of marks like 'ACTIVE', 'ACFIVE', and 'POWER'. This initial order restrains the defendant from using confusingly similar branding while mandating the disclosure of sales accounts, setting the stage for further litigation.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical And Food Product And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd against D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical, ordering the removal of the respondent's registered mark under Class 32. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned trademark was either not used continuously for the required period or constituted an infringement/passing off risk given the established reputation and extensive use of the 'AMUL' brand. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against unauthorized registrations.