Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9201–9300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur in a revocation action concerning European patent No. EP 3 414 708. The order addressed three procedural issues: the validity of the patent's priority claim, the allowable form of amendments, and late-filed attacks on validity. The judge-rapporteur ruled that the priority claim validity issue should remain part of the proceedings, deferred amendment-related issues to the oral hearing, excluded novelty attacks based on MB5 and MB6, but admitted sufficiency attacks targeting the amended version of the patent.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order concerns a revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against European patent EP 3 414 708 held by Carrier Corporation. The judge-rapporteur addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from the interim conference, including the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of certain patent amendments, and late-filed attacks on novelty and sufficiency. The ruling permitted the priority challenge to proceed, excluded late-filed novelty attacks based on documents MB5 and MB6, allowed sufficiency attacks targeting the amended patent, and deferred questions regarding the admissibility of certain amendments and the twelfth auxiliary request to the oral hearing.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit alleging infringement of its Patent No. 271425 against Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation. Concurrently, the defendants filed a counter claim seeking the revocation of this patent. The Gujarat High Court examined both the infringement claims and the validity challenges raised by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement, and consequently, rejected the counter claim for revocation, affirming the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The dispute involves President and Fellows of Harvard College challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'non-native' pancreatic beta cells used in diabetes treatment. The Controller General objected primarily on grounds related to Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that any cell product originates from an animal source. The court directed both parties to file a brief note clarifying the patentability of these 'non-native' cells and reviewing relevant precedents before proceeding with other objections.
Sulzer Mixpac Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sulzer Mixpac Ag appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'STATIC MIXER' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in view of cited prior art documents (D1-D4). The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Patent Office's objections.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This order addresses two concurrent proceedings concerning Patent IN 243301, which had expired on August 18, 2023. The erstwhile patentee argued the petitions were infructuous due to expiry. Petitioners contended that validity must still be decided as they faced ongoing infringement actions where invalidity was raised as a defense.
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Varun Chohpra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a new suit filed by Varun Chohpra & Anr. against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf, which alleged trademark infringement concerning the 'NATRAJ' brand. The court noted that a similar matter was already pending in Bangalore. Before proceeding with summons, the court directed steps to ascertain the maintainability of the current suit due to the new cause of action. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants for a returnable hearing.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns a request by FUJIFILM Corporation to extend the time period for filing its reply to the defendants' Statement of defence, Counterclaims for revocation, and application to amend European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The defendants had filed confidential information related to alleged private prior use and business figures, and access was initially restricted to the claimant's representatives. The court granted the extension until 28 May 2024, finding that the delayed and restricted access to confidential information constituted an exceptional case justifying the extension.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.
Mona Aggarwal v.Sandhya Gupta
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Mona Aggarwal against the trademark 'Super MULTI PLUS' used by Sandhya Gupta. Mona Aggarwal argues that since her prior passing-off suit established her as the prior user, and Sandhya Gupta failed to provide documentary evidence of use since 1994, the registration should be cancelled as fraudulent. The court has noted these arguments but deferred a final decision, setting a date for further hearing.
Kamlesh Kumar Mehta v.Union Of India; Gini Silk Mills Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar Mehta seeking the expeditious disposal of his long-pending trademark registration application for 'GILI' in Class 24. After considering the petitioner's request, the court issued an order directing the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 1) to decide Application No. 1779181 within a strict period of eight weeks from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Rajesh Jain v.Amit Jain & Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the refusal to grant discovery of documents. The suit involves trademark infringement and passing off, where defendants raised a defense of distinctiveness. The court ruled that since the sought-after documents were primarily intended to rebut an earlier application (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) which was decided nearly ten years prior, they lacked relevance at the current stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff must rely on other evidence to prove their case.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This appeal concerned five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, relating to five European patents. The statements for revocation incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' rather than 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of Appeal addressed whether the claimant could rectify this naming error and considered the issue of costs under Rule 242.1 RoP. The Court held that rectification could be granted where it was clear from the circumstances that the claimant intended the action against the defendant, and that no order for costs would be issued at the appeal stage since the decision was not a final order concluding the action.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
The defendant filed an application seeking discovery of facts and particulars of the plaintiff's product to obtain a declaration of non-infringement under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the dispute regarding whether merely furnishing 'full particulars in writing' is sufficient or if the actual product must be shared.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Abdus Salam Khan
In a suit concerning alleged counterfeiting and infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. The court allowed exemptions for urgent proceedings, including waiving advance service and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the need for swift action against counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate the alleged infringements, allowing access to premises and financial records to gather evidence regarding the unauthorized use of unique designs and the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of two impugned copyright registrations related to a confectionary tablet label. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' and cited prior rejection orders as res judicata. The Court deferred final adjudication, requiring both parties to clarify the pending issues in the underlying suits.
M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited, allowing them to renew their trademark registration despite missing the statutory renewal deadline. The court found that the notice sent by the Registrar's office was never properly received by the petitioner due to incorrect addressing and procedural errors. This decision underscores the importance of proving proper service of official communications in IP matters.
Kubota Corporation v.Kaira Agros & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.
GS1 India v.Deepak Traders & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of GS1 India against Deepak Traders & Ors. The dispute centers on the exclusive licensing and allocation of specific 13-digit GTIN barcodes (starting with '890') within India. The court found a prima facie case, noting that defendants were allegedly contravening the Terms of Use by allocating these unique identifiers to unauthorized entities, thereby disrupting the global GS1 identification system.
Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc. v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE regarding European Patent EP1612910. The defendants requested that certain information in their Rejoinder, particularly projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, be declared confidential trade secrets with access restricted to a maximum of three named reliable persons. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were attempting to delay proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restrictions under Rule 262A.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) to classify certain information in their Rejoinder as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A, specifically projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period following a possible injunction. The defendants sought to restrict access to no more than three named reliable persons. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies) opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and sought to lift the preliminary access restrictions. The Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restriction application.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Vibrant Concepts And Designs
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed suits alleging that Vibrant Concepts And Designs infringed upon its intellectual property rights, specifically concerning its patented technology and registered designs for frameless gas cooktops. The plaintiff claimed their products were world's first and featured unique design elements and a patentable internal piping system providing visual leak feedback. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement, it dismissed the interim injunction applications, directing both parties to proceed to trial.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on objections concerning lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). Google argued that its amended claims introduced differentiating features over the cited prior art.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited successfully secured an ex-parte interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors. The court granted permission for a Local Commissioner to be appointed, enabling the seizure and confiscation of alleged counterfeit products bearing the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand. This decisive order allows the plaintiff to take immediate action against infringement across multiple IP rights, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design.
Retail Royalty Company And Anr v.Rohit Madan, Trading As Sita Outdoor Media
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff, Retail Royalty Company And Anr, to amend a previous court order. The amendment corrected an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the specific description of the 'Flying Eagle Device' trademark. This procedural step ensures that the legal proceedings accurately reflect the intellectual property rights being asserted.
M/S. P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S. Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a multi-faceted judgment addressing several IP disputes involving the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark. In one suit, the court decreed P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.'s claim against Thukral Mechanical Works, while simultaneously ordering the cancellation of an older registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works in Class 7. Furthermore, the High Court set aside previous rejection orders for P.M. Diesels' trademark applications, allowing them to proceed toward registration.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant challenges Vigilytics's '012 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to de-identification and tokenization in healthcare data. The petitioner argues that combining known concepts from prior art references like Evenhaim, Murphy, Dick, and Landi renders the claims predictable. This is an early petition for review filing focused on fundamental privacy compliance techniques.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. successfully challenged 20 claims of Vigilytics LLC's patent (10886012) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the technology for de-identifying medical data was obvious over prior art references like Evenhaim and Murphy. The PTAB decided to institute the case, finding a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.
Mayo Foundation For Medical Education and Research v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal concerns the patentability of a method for detecting autoantibodies in biological samples. The respondent argued that the method was ineligible under Section 3(i) because it described a diagnostic process. The petitioner countered, but the respondent raised a legal challenge based on a Madras High Court judgment, arguing that the previous finding (that in vitro methods were acceptable) was incorrect.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Nexkem Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Nexkem Biotech for infringing its patent related to Empagliflozin. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit by arguing that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act was not exhausted, as there was no urgency. The court dismissed this objection, finding that the suit did contemplate urgent interim relief and noting the defendants' admission of infringement.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
north side brewers private ltd v.the registrar of trade marks
North Side Brewers Private Ltd appealed a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, prompting consideration of relevant case law regarding the Registrar's discretionary powers and precedents concerning trademark delays.
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd v.Rama Krishna Books
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd against Rama Krishna Books. The publisher alleged that the defendant was selling substandard, infringing copies of their medical textbooks while also misusing their registered trademarks. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business interests in the specialized medical publishing market.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems challenges Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in a PTAB Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that combining various prior art references renders nearly all challenged claims unpatentable.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Portsmouth Network Corporation's patent (8014394) in an IPR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for several claims based on obviousness over prior art references Weyman and Li.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining existing network technologies taught or rendered obvious the claimed limitations, particularly in multicast routing and packet processing.
TESLA, INC. v.Autonomous Devices, LLC
Tesla’s IPR against Autonomous Devices’ ’974 patent resulted in the Board finding claims 4 and 11 unpatentable and also striking the proposed substitute claims 21 and 24‑26, while leaving claims 5, 7 and other substitutes intact.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled their IPR dispute over patent 6,292,743 B1, leading the Board to dismiss the case before a trial. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential under statutory provisions.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the PTAB’s finding of unpatentability for a movie‑distribution method, arguing the Board relied on an improper combination of prior art. The petition seeks Director review of the decision.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota Motor Corp. and Infogation Corp. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,107,628 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending IPR. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties argue dismissal is appropriate at this early stage.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The Board issued an order granting Cala Health and EMKinetics' joint request to keep their Confidential Settlement Agreement private under 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The agreement will be treated as business confidential information and kept separate from the patent file.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics jointly moved to dismiss IPR2024‑00743 covering claims 1‑17 of U.S. Patent 11,628,300. The parties cite a confidential settlement and the early, pre‑institution stage of the proceeding as reasons for dismissal.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Disney challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, asserting that the Board’s claim constructions and prior‑art analysis were correct. The response contends the request adds no new arguments and should be denied.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
Digital Media Technology Holdings seeks a 30‑day extension to file a Director Review request after the PTAB’s final decision on its U.S. Patent 7,574,725, citing good cause due to counsel’s age and heavy workload.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing competitive harm if disclosed. The Board has yet to rule on the request.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB issued an order compelling Cala Health and EMKinetics to file a true copy of their settlement agreement before the joint motion to dismiss can be acted upon, emphasizing compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(b). A dissenting judge argues the rule does not apply pre‑institution.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
WellcomeMat seeks Director Review of a Board decision that declared its video‑editing cue‑point patent invalid. The Owner contends the Board misapplied legal standards on anticipation, obviousness, and claim construction.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point processing for online real‑estate videos. Petitioner Aylo Freesites showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim, and the Board rejected discretionary denial arguments.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites Ltd responded to WellcomeMat’s Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly found claims 13‑15 and 17‑20 of the ’286 patent unpatentable based on proper prior‑art comparison. The Board’s analysis of the video‑editing environment claim term was upheld, and the request for review should be denied.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Largan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Largan’s 9,997,660 patent covering a light‑trap optical sheet. The petitioner claims the Board erred by dismissing simultaneous‑invention evidence and applying an unduly rigid obviousness test.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKINETICS settled their dispute over two patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review proceedings before trial.
Cala Health, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Cala Health and EMKinetics filed a joint motion to dismiss the IPR over U.S. Patent 10,786,669, citing a confidential settlement and the early stage of the proceeding. They request the Board terminate the case before institution to preserve resources.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.Infogation Corp.
Toyota and Infogation settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,292,743 and jointly moved to dismiss the pending inter partes review.
Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution, LLC v.Digital Media Technology Holdings, LLC
The PTAB granted Digital Media Technology Holdings a two‑week extension to file a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00736 concerning patent 7,574,725.