Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9501–9600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Capital One, National Association et al. v.--
Capital One National Association filed an IPR challenging Implicit, LLC's patent 8056075 on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. §103). The petition asserts that the claims are rendered unpatentable by various combinations of prior art references including Fowlow and Kimera.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (11805267), arguing that the claimed weighted bi-directional motion prediction is anticipated by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Karczewicz references to demonstrate that using higher precision for intermediate calculations was already known in the field.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al.
Lenovo successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Ericsson's patent (10425817) covering 5G security protocols. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on combinations of prior art references, leading to a trial proceeding.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully secured the institution of its IPR against VIDEO SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD., challenging 13 claims related to low latency video conferencing over § 103 obviousness. The Board found compelling evidence that Cisco has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple independent and dependent claims, moving the dispute into active litigation.
2985 LLC d/b/a Mountain Voyage Co. v.The Ridge Wallet LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR petition challenging 21 claims of The Ridge Wallet LLC's '808 patent based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success, specifically noting the Examiner overlooked material teachings in Kane and Beckley regarding key structural elements.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully navigated the institution phase of its IPR against Nokia regarding video coding claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon could prove unpatentability under § 103, leading to the case being instituted for trial.
Pfizer Inc. v.Incepta Pharmaceuticals Limited
The court confirmed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted earlier, restricting defendants from dealing in infringing products related to Patents No. 243571 and 250050, as other patents had expired. The court also directed service of notice for discovery regarding the origin and import of impugned products and allowed amendments to the plaint.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc and Ono Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Union of India, The Controller of Patents & Designs, Zydus Healthcare Limited
The petitioners, international pharmaceutical companies, challenged the recommendations of the Opposition Board regarding their granted patent (IN340060). They argued that the board improperly considered a rejoinder filed by the opponent and failed to consider additional evidence submitted by the petitioners. The court found that the Controller's failure to pass orders on procedural applications led to an incomplete scrutiny, thus vitiating the recommendations.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited challenged the recommendations of the Patent Opposition Board (OBR) regarding its patent IN387429, alleging that the OBR failed to consider the expert evidence submitted by both parties. The petitioner sought quashing of the OBR and reconstitution of a fresh Opposition Board. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the OBR is merely recommendatory and the Controller retains the duty to make an independent decision.
Suzuki Motor Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr
Suzuki Motor Corporation appealed regarding objections related to their patent claims. The Court noted that while there is no specific provision for re-consideration, amendments might be allowed if errors relate to translation/transliteration. The Court subsequently directed the Appellant to file an application under Section 57 of the Patents Act to amend their modified claims.
Baxalta Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Baxalta Incorporated appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents which refused their application for "FACTOR VIII POLYMER CONJUGATES" due to lack of novelty and inventive steps in product claims. The appellant sought leave to submit an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to method claims. The High Court allowed this submission, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Laser Components SAS v.Respondent
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance procédurale du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13/03/2024 DEMANDEUR: Laser Components SAS 45B Route des Gardes 92190 Meudon - FR Representé par Helge von Hirschhausen DEFENDEUR: Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 6
UPC Decision UPC-001562 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
UPC Decision UPC-001561 v.Respondent
UPC Court of Appeal UPC_CoA_5/2024 PR_APL_189/2024 ORDER of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 March 2024 pursuant to Rule 229.5 RoP HAEDNOTE Under Rule 220.2 RoP an appeal from an order without leave is inadmissible from the outset and, as
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their dispute, leading to the termination of eight inter partes review proceedings covering patents on wireless networking. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties have filed a joint stipulation for dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless jointly moved to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal stipulation in federal court. The Board was asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00542 after reaching a settlement covering the disputed LED patent.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Saera Electric Auto Limited v.Malak Techno Private Limited
Saera Electric Auto Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement suit against Malak Techno Private Limited through mediation. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the Delhi High Court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, Malak Techno agreed to cease all use of the impugned mark 'MAYUR' and any deceptively similar variations, acknowledge Saera as the sole owner of the 'MAYURI' trademarks and copyright in its logo, and pay damages totaling Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Sunil Dutt Trading As Kilter v.Pro Muscle Science & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Kilter (owner of 'MUSCLE SCIENCE') and Pro Muscle Science regarding trademark infringement in the dietary supplement market. The court found that the Defendants' use of marks like 'PRO MUSCLE SCIENCE' was highly likely to cause consumer confusion, as the Plaintiff's registered mark is entirely incorporated into the competing names. Consequently, the existing interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff was confirmed. While the matter proceeds toward mediation, the ruling strongly affirms the protection afforded to established trademarks against similar competitors.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
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 a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
GenSquare LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Patent Office
GenSquare LLC appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing its divisional patent application. The refusal was primarily based on the ground that the divisional claims did not flow from the original parent application. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller's reliance on an overruled judgment was flawed.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application. The core dispute revolves around whether the claimed method for data processing qualifies as an invention despite being classified as a computer program per se under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Niranjan Arvind Gosavi And Ors v.Innovatiview India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendant infringed their patent (No. 336205) related to secure document validation methods by bidding for an NTA e-tender requiring enhanced QR Code solutions. The court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction, considering the impact on the tendering process, but directed the defendant to maintain full accounts if they succeed in the tender.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs (F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag) filed an application seeking the constitution of a Confidentiality Club. The Defendant (Zydus Lifesciences Limited) argued that access should be contingent upon preliminary findings regarding the identity of the biosimilar to the innovator drug. The Court directed both parties to submit their proposed members for the confidentiality club.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Majji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
Alpha Foundation for Education and Research v.Akara Education Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed multiple appeals filed by Alpha Foundation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to treat their opposition as abandoned. The court ruled that the failure of the Registrar to provide proof of service of the counter statement was fatal, overriding procedural delays in filing evidence. Consequently, the opposition has been restored, and the challenged trademark registrations have been held in abeyance pending a full hearing on the merits.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny HighLevel’s request for a review, citing the Hulu decision and prior district‑court invalidity of the claims. The brief argues that instituting another IPR would be inefficient and that the petitioner’s reliance on the Ford case is misplaced.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels' website‑creation patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not invoke discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of DH International’s ’294 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial grounds exist.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' product composition infringes on their patented weedicidal formulation, which includes a specific blend of chemicals. The case involves determining whether the Defendants' product violates the claims of the Plaintiff's patent.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Inder Mohan Chadha
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Inder Mohan Chadha for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's' and the Two Horse logo. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing falsified marks identical or deceptively similar to those registered by Levi Strauss & Company.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Business Objects Software Limited appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its invention, titled 'Transparent Distribution and Module Decoupling Through Asynchronous Communication and Scopes', under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patent Act. The High Court found that the Controller's order lacked quality and failed to consider the appellant's amended claims during the hearing.
Wyeth Llc v.The Controllers Of Patents
Wyeth LLC appealed an impugned order regarding its patent application. The core dispute revolves around amendments made by the appellant from a PCT application (claiming a 'regimen') to subsequent national phase applications (claiming a 'combination' and 'pharmaceutical pack'). Wyeth argues these amendments were within the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Novartis Ag & Ors. v.Noviets Pharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.
Nababuddin Ahmed v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Diageo North America, Inc v.Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.
Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents concerning its patent application No. 5945/DELNP/2009. The appellant argued that the Controller's observation contradicted previous hearing notices and written submissions, specifically regarding industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(ac) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion with Trina Solar and Evervolt to terminate their participation in IPR2025-00006 after settling all disputes, including a related ITC proceeding.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, challenged the charging of TDS and interest by the DCIT regarding annual payments made to international educational boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held these payments constituted royalty for using trademarks. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and restored the matter to the AO for further clarification on the nature of the lump sum fees.
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
A.L.M.Holding Company v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, appealed against orders charging TDS and interest on annual payments made to international education boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held that these payments constituted royalty for the use of trademarks and services provided by the overseas institutions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further clarification regarding the nature of the lump sum fees.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.P.Krishnam Raju; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the cancellation of the trade mark 'SPICE' (Registration No. 1091801). The court noted that despite being served with the Registry notice, the petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
B & D Technologies defends its lawn‑mower cab patent by asserting that the “rear wall” term means the interior rear wall and that the petitioner’s prior‑art references are not novel, seeking a discretionary denial of the IPR.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B & D Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024‑01150 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and related district‑court litigation was dismissed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.