Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9601–9700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
Court decision.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.
The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to suspend limitation periods under the Trade Marks Act, citing severe disruptions in accessing the Trademark Registry's online portal. The petitioner highlighted persistent technical difficulties, including non-functional e-filing services and payment gateway issues, which were causing stakeholders to lose valuable IP rights. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to appear on the next date to provide detailed solutions and status updates regarding the systemic failures.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.
Frances Shenker v.M/S Allanasons Private Limited
In a dispute over the 'STEAKHOUSE' mark, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking to challenge the plaintiff's registered trademark. The court found prima facie merit in the defendant's contention that the descriptive word might be invalid under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the court framed the issue regarding the validity and rectification of the mark and granted the defendant three months to file a formal rectification petition.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v.Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement between Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited (Plaintiff) and Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Defendant). While the Plaintiff presented extensive evidence of market presence, sales, and potential consumer confusion regarding the marks 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' and 'BABY FOREST', the court ultimately dismissed the applications seeking an injunction against the use of the latter. The judgment emphasized the need for a composite assessment, referencing the established 'Pianotist test,' to determine likelihood of confusion.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
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 cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-PDGFR alpha antibody, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a discovery of a naturally existing molecule. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and recombinant technology involving transgenic mice, making it non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Monsnto Technology Llc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
Monsnto Technology Llc appealed the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'Chloroplast Transit Peptides'. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on incomplete consideration of claims and citation of subsequent prior art. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a Gamma Sterilizable RFID system. The invention utilizes a ferro-electric random access memory (FRAM) chip with redundant information storage to ensure data integrity when exposed to high-intensity gamma radiation used in sterilization processes. The Madras High Court examined whether this combination was obvious based on existing prior art, particularly regarding redundancy techniques. Ultimately, the court found that the nature and purpose of the claimed redundancy were fundamentally different from those disclosed in the cited prior art, thereby satisfying the inventive step requirement.
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Genmab A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genmab A/S appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 4718/CHENP/2007) for a monoclonal antibody targeting human CD38. The respondent argued that the antibody was merely a discovery of a naturally existing molecule, thus ineligible under Section 3(c). The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the antibody was produced through substantial human intervention and possessed inventive step.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
Industeel France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, Design, Trade Mark And Geographical Indications Patent Office
Industeel France appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 119/CHENP/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller repeatedly changed objections and prior arts, causing procedural inconvenience. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Sachin Gupta Trading As M/S Jai Balaji Grah Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'LACY' brand. The court allowed the Plaintiff to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises using Local Commissioners, aiming to prevent further unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks like 'LECY'. This order establishes strong preliminary protection for the Plaintiff's established goodwill in the FMCG sector.
Prakash Singh & Anr. v.Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed cancellation petitions filed by Prakash Singh & Anr. seeking the removal and rectification of trademarks registered by Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr. The petitioners alleged that the respondent, a charitable trust, sought to monopolize the spiritual heritage and goodwill associated with the late 'GURU JI' on a mala fide basis. The Court accepted notice from the respondent and scheduled the matter for further arguments.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural requests by the plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff requested that the interim hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024 be held in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous interpretation from German to English. The presiding judge denied both requests, holding that switching from video to in-person requires demonstrated unconditional necessity, and that the plaintiff must resolve the tension created by its own choice of German as the procedural language for an English-granted patent with international parties.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00853 after reaching a confidential settlement and license agreement, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties seek to end the proceeding.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on a 3‑D memory patent was denied. The Board’s findings that the petitioner’s proposed modifications were inoperable and lacked motivation were upheld.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
Micron Technology petitions the PTAB Director to review a final written decision that upheld Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND flash patent claims. Micron contends the Board erred on obviousness grounds by demanding bodily incorporation, ignoring reply‑stage evidence, and misapplying anticipation standards. The request seeks reversal or vacatur of the decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking Section 317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to separate the settlement from the public patent file.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over DexCom’s glucose‑monitoring patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential business information.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.YANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.
The USPTO denied Micron Technology’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00791 (and the related IPR2024-00911). The order contains no substantive patentability findings.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
Uber Technologies filed a Petition challenging the validity of Enovsys's Proximity Alert Patent (6756918) based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner argues that existing prior art, including Layson references and Taylor/Fast teachings, renders the claimed location tracking methods unpatentable. This challenges a key patent in the victim-offender monitoring space.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR concerning network reconfiguration protocols, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness (103). The patent relates to methods for rapid link failure recovery in Switching/Routing Protocols (STP).
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom for patent infringement related to remote patient monitoring and glucose technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, specifically finding that prior art combinations rendered key claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to challenge DexCom's CGM patent (9119528) on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over Brauker. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims, leading to institution.
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Enovsys, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to location tracking and wireless systems. The Board found insufficient evidence that the challenged claims would be obvious over the cited prior art, particularly regarding specific limitations like 'tracking period' or 'tracking request.'
Uber Technologies, Inc. v.Envosys, LLC
Uber Technologies' IPR challenge against Envosys' location tracking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, particularly regarding the scope of geographic notification limitations.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Delhi High Court heard several part-heard matters concerning a common legal question under Section 3(k) of the Patent Act, 1970. The order was passed in hybrid mode and scheduled for further hearing.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the dismissal of its patent application (No. 4866/CHENP/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The rejection was based on alleged non-filing of Form-3, coverage by the original application, and exceeding the specification. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller had not applied its mind to the facts, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Ab Skf & Anr v.M/S Osaka International Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of Ab Skf & Anr, reinforcing existing injunctions while addressing new infringement concerns. The court directed a defendant involved in non-compliance with an earlier injunction to file a compliance affidavit regarding sales cancellations and refunds. Furthermore, based on evidence of counterfeit goods and domain squatting, the court ordered Defendant No. 12 (GoDaddy LLC) to immediately lock and suspend the infringing domain name 'www.skfsg.com', demonstrating proactive enforcement against trademark misuse.
M/s.Mesmer Pharmaceuticals v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration of 'REJUSTAR' in Class 5. The Registrar had cited phonetic similarity to other marks, but the court held that it was premature to determine deceptive similarity based solely on scrutiny under Section 11. Given that the appellant's mark is an invented word and the cited marks were used for different goods or outside India, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for further processing.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Mohd. Nazim And Anr.
The Delhi High Court registered the commercial suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Mohd. Nazim And Anr., concerning alleged trademark infringement of 'AUGMENTIN' by the use of 'ZENMENTIN' for similar pharmaceutical products. The court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting permission to submit sealed documents related to sales figures. Crucially, the court directed that notice be issued to the defendants regarding the injunction application (I.A. 5188/2024), setting the stage for a full trial on the infringement claim.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-04) under reference UPC-001572, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Jyoti Dewani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
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.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order concerns a review request filed by Novawell against an ex parte saisie order granted to C-Kore Systems Limited, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea apparatus and testing. The Court examined whether Novawell's review request was filed within the 30-day time limit under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure, addressing when the 'execution of the measures' begins for purposes of calculating that deadline. The Court also considered the criteria for granting the ex parte order, the distinction between preserving evidence and inspection procedures, and the conformity of the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff with French national law.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to challenge P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087) before the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The petitioner alleges that the polymer coating claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Cohen and Legein.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent 8265096, finding no reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prove unpatentability. The denial hinged on the Board's rejection of anticipation arguments based on prior art related to wireless data formats.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining references like Cohen and Legein, or Francesch and Legein, was motivated by intrinsic evidence and skilled artisan capabilities. This decision significantly impacts the patent owner's portfolio in plasma polymerization coatings for electronics.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. challenged 17 claims of Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s patent using grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed optical fiber connectors are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Raven, Kuffel, Wong, and Gniadek. The case was dismissed without a final ruling due to a stipulation not to pursue district court grounds.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Sicpa Holding Sa v.The Controller of Patents
Sicpa Holding Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Inline Spectroscopic Reader and Methods' by the Controller of Patents, which cited a lack of inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller had not adequately considered the detailed explanations provided by the appellant in response to the objections raised on prior art. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
M/S Lavos Performance v.M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Trial Court that dismissed its application to stay proceedings in an infringement suit, arguing that a revocation petition against the respondent's patent was pending before the competent authority. The Karnataka High Court ruled that while evidence relating to alleged infringement could be recorded, the final arguments on the merits of the suit must wait until the outcome of the patent revocation application.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.