Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9701–9800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn. v.The Controller of Patents
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn appealed an order from the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on a propylene impact copolymer and method. The appellant argued that the rejection was flawed because the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and amendments made in response to prior art objections. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Audertec Solutions Llp v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks & Anr.
Audertec Solutions LLP appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning 'a method and system for detecting road anomalies.' The Controller rejected the application, primarily citing a lack of inventive step compared to prior art D-2. The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining if the distinguishing features of the invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the disclosures in D-2. Ultimately, the court found no reason to differ from the Assistant Controller's decision.
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian 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, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg v.Ssf Plastics India Private Limited & Anr
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10851/DELNP/2014) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure and lack of inventive step, as also in the context of a pre-grant opposition.
Su Kam Power Systems Limited v.Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. Kantaloop Communications & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions concerning the 'Su-Kam' trademark, pitting Su Kam Power Systems Limited against Kunwer Sachdev. The court noted that while the petitioner company holds a key registration, the defendant claims original conceptualization of the mark. Given the complex history involving insolvency and prior civil judgments, the court has directed both parties to file detailed notes and encouraged them to explore amicable resolution through mediation before listing the matter again.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of its PGR, arguing the Board improperly required seed sequencing under §103 for a plant utility patent. The petition seeks director review to overturn the denial and restore the ability to contest the patent without analyzing deposited seed.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial, leaving Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed patent intact.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung submits an authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, defending the Board’s findings that the ’802 patent’s claims are valid and that prior art references, including Sung’146, are properly considered. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung seeks to invalidate a CMP‑pad dresser patent (U.S. 9,138,862) by alleging that prior‑art references, especially Sung’026 and related disclosures, anticipate or render obvious all 20 claims. The petition argues public accessibility of the prior art and cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Maj. Pankaj Rai v.M/S Niit Ltd.
Maj. Pankaj Rai challenged an Arbitral Award dated 19.10.2023, which rejected his claims against M/S Niit Ltd. The dispute arose from a License Agreement (dated 30.12.2015) allowing the petitioner to set up an education center using NIIT's intellectual property. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Arbitral Award.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Navkar Agriculture Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh Proprietor Of Ambika Industries
In this interim order concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court accepted the Defendant's proposal to substantially modify their contested mark. Despite the Plaintiff's concerns regarding residual similarity in font style, the Court ruled that the overall changes sufficiently reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant was allowed a grace period of two months to exhaust existing inventory while transitioning to the new mark, provided they comply with all regulatory requirements.
Fintie Llc Through Mr.Nai Chu Cheng v.Vivekananda Chintapalli Of Flat 5 & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Fintie LLC's petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration. The court found that the respondent had registered the identical word mark 'FINTIE,' relying on the petitioner's established goodwill and prior use in other jurisdictions. Given the clear identity of the marks, the court ruled it inappropriate for the respondent's mark to remain on the register.
Campus Activewear Limited v.Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in Campus Activewear Limited vs Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and designs related to shoes. The court formally registered the commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial. Furthermore, the urgent application seeking a permanent injunction was listed for further hearing, indicating that the core dispute over copying Campus's brand and design is moving forward.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.V.Nataraja trading as M/s.Nataraja Traders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark registered by V.Nataraja Traders. The court found that the respondent's mark was strikingly and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ArokyA' brand, despite minor differences or added devices. This decision reinforces the principle that similarity in appearance, color scheme, and overall impression can lead to trademark cancellation, even if the infringing party attempts slight modifications.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/02/2024 APPLICANT ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas - US Represented by Lionel Martin RELEVANT OTHER PARTIES ARM Limited 110 Fulbou
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art references rendered the claimed features predictable to one skilled in the art.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1783/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order did not properly assess non-obviousness, failing to apply established legal principles regarding inventive step analysis. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Adama India Private Limited v.FMC Corporation & Anr.
This order addresses multiple suits filed in the Delhi High Court concerning patent infringement. Adama India Private Limited has sought a declaration that its CTPR manufacturing process does not infringe FMC Corporation's patent (IN 298645), while FMC Corporation seeks permanent injunction against Adama India for infringement.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent via an IPR petition, arguing the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references. The petitioner asserts that known concepts regarding location tracking and message boards render the claimed invention predictable and trivial to implement.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Petition with the PTAB challenging claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent 9619420, arguing that the USB hub technology is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining existing components like host-to-host bridges and dual-role switching functionality renders the claimed invention predictable to a person skilled in the art.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB denied Microchip Technology's IPR against Aptiv Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing due to contingent and unsupported claim construction arguments.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms, Inc. successfully secured institution of its Inter Partes Review against Sitnet's patent 9877345. The Board found that the petitioner met the likelihood standard for obviousness over multiple prior art references (Gage, Mitchell, Shida).
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution in its IPR challenge against Sitnet, LLC's '454 patent. The Board found sufficient support for obviousness over Amidon and Wong/Gogic, advancing the dispute to trial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Aptiv Technologies AG regarding USB connectivity claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references Chang and Chang II for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology successfully petitioned to institute trial on several claims of Aptiv Technologies' patent regarding USB Hub/Bridge Systems, overcoming initial objections from the Patent Owner. The Board adopted a judicial correction of Claim 13, revising 'hub' to 'host', which significantly shaped the scope of the dispute.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board found obviousness over single and combined prior art references (Gage/Mitchell) for original claims, and also determined substitute claims failed both 103 and 101 standards.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 20 claims of the patent unpatentable over a combination of Burfeind and Crowley. The Board adopted the petitioner's argument that the challenged claims were obvious, specifically noting that Crowley provided motivation to integrate location-based features into Burfeind's event management system.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB found that Claims 1-9 and 20 are unpatentable over prior art references (Amidon, Wong, Gogic) based on obviousness. Additionally, the Board granted an Adverse Judgment to cancel claims 10-19.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 13 and 14 unpatentable over prior art references Chang and Chang II based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's definition of POSITA and corrected a scrivener's error in claim 13, replacing 'hub' with 'host'.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Zenon Healthcare Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Zenon Healthcare Limited and Krishnam Bio-Tech alleging trademark and copyright infringement related to its product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINOZVIT, as well as relief for passing off and unauthorized reproduction of artistic works. Both parties ultimately resolved their dispute amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Duke University v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Design
Duke University appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'LASOFOXIFENE TREATMENT OF ER+ BREAST CANCER' by the Deputy Controller. The Controller rejected the application, citing prior art and statutory objections (Sec. 2(1)(ja) and Sec. 3(i)), without permitting the appellant to amend its claims as requested.
Gopaljee Foods v.Subhash Chand & Ors.
In Gopaljee Foods vs Subhash Chand & Ors., the Delhi High Court addressed ongoing trademark disputes, noting that an ex-parte ad interim injunction previously granted in favor of the petitioner regarding trademark infringement had been confirmed by a Coordinate Bench. The court also noted attempts by respondents to revive abandoned trademarks and make changes to user dates, requiring them to place supporting documentation on record for further consideration.
Kewal Krishan Bansal Propreitor Of Ms Vee Pee Bansal And Company v.Puneet Chhabra Propreitor Of Rama Wire Industries
The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendant's application to vacate an interim injunction granted in a trademark and passing off suit. The court found that the plaintiff's prior registration history, spanning from 1979, coupled with their copyright registration, strongly supported the initial finding of infringement. The judge noted the suspicious timing of the defendant's attempts to register identical marks after the plaintiff's mark was temporarily removed from the registry due to non-renewal, buttressing the decision to maintain the injunction.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
ORDER
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The appellants (NanoString Technologies entities) appealed against an order in proceedings initiated by the respondents (10x Genomics and Harvard College). The order addresses key legal principles including the examination of formal requirements under Rule 206.2 RoP, the interpretation of patent claims under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient degree of certainty required for provisional measures under Rule 211.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding preliminary measures for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 108 782. After the oral hearing on December 16, 2023, all three NanoString entities filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on February 4, 2024. The applicants (10x Genomics and Harvard) requested that the proceedings be stayed due to the insolvency, and the respondents (NanoString) agreed. The Court of Appeal held that, under principles of procedural economy, cost efficiency, and fair balance of interests, the proceedings did not need to be stayed because the insolvency occurred only after the close of oral hearings and the case was ready for decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor Limited, Supponor España SL
This order concerns two appeals filed by AIM Sport Development AG against a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed AIM's requests for a preliminary injunction, evidentiary measures, and an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the patent had been opted out of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal identified a potential procedural defect: AIM lodged its Statement of appeal on 20 December 2023, within two months of service, whereas the applicable Rule 224.1(b) RoP requires appeals against orders under Articles 60 and 62 UPCA to be lodged within 15 days of service. The Court invited both parties to submit written comments on whether the non-compliance should lead to inadmissibility of the appeal.
NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.President and Fellows of Harvard College; 10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP 4 108 782. The applicants, 10x Genomics and Harvard College, sought provisional measures against NanoString Technologies entities. The order addresses key legal principles regarding formal requirements for provisional measure applications, patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, and the standard of sufficient certainty required under Rule 211.2 RoP. The decision establishes important guidance on burden of proof allocation between applicants and defendants in provisional measure proceedings.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
CIMBRIA SRL and 3U Vision settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,666,947, leading to a joint motion that terminated the post‑grant review. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL and 3U Vision SRL jointly moved to terminate the Post‑Grant Review of U.S. Patent 11,666,947 after reaching a confidential settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding on public‑policy grounds.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco’s authorized response rebuts Umbra’s claim‑construction arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s interpretation of “end‑to‑end tunnel” aligns with the intrinsic record and that Umbra’s expert and prosecution‑history arguments lack support.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP reached a settlement, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review of patent 6,308,178. The Board granted the termination and ordered the settlement agreement to remain confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP jointly filed a motion requesting that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the patent file under statutory confidentiality provisions.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung and Cobblestone Wireless have settled the IPR concerning patent 7,924,802. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b).
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics and Cobblestone Wireless settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
SAP America and ISIX IP settled their dispute over a 1999 ERP‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided any merits, allowing termination under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The USPTO denied Cisco Systems' request for Director Review of the institution decision in the IPR against Umbra Technologies' patent 10,630,505. The denial leaves the institution decision intact.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction for an “end-to-end tunnel” and seeking to vacate the institution of review for Cisco’s IPR. The Board had instituted the IPR based on an obviousness finding over Hankins and Munger references.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its ’595 patent. The petition argues the panel erred by equating the patent’s specific “list of available servers” request with a generic “services” request in the Hankins prior art, and by using the patent itself as a roadmap. It asks the Director to vacate the institution and terminate the proceeding.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbria SRL, backed by AGCO, has filed a PGR petition challenging all 15 claims of 3U Vision’s automated sorting‑machine patent, asserting indefiniteness and obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB denied Cisco's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00497 concerning Umbra's patent 10,630,505.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra has requested a Director Review of IPR2024-00497. Cisco may file a limited 15‑page response without new evidence, and the Director will decide on the request.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.
Cimbra SRL et al. v.3U Vision SRL
Cimbra SRL challenged 3U Vision's optical sorting patent (11666947) on grounds of obviousness and indefiniteness, specifically over the prior art reference ElMasry. The PTAB preliminarily agreed that it is more likely than not that at least one claim would be unpatentable, instituting the proceeding for trial phase.
SAP America, Inc. v.ISIX IP LLC
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR against ISIX IP LLC's patent (6308178), finding sufficient evidence that SAP America, Inc. had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Brann and Suresh. The Board adopted key claim constructions, notably rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow view of 'application.'
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of success for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in challenging Cobblestone Wireless LLC's patent (7924802). The Board preliminarily determined that the preamble 'in a wireless communication channel' is not limiting, allowing the IPR to proceed on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102).
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned to challenge Umbra Technologies' patent (10630505) regarding Global Virtual Network optimization claims. The PTAB institution decision found reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness over prior art combinations, specifically citing Hankins and Munger for several key claims.