Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 9801–9900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board adopted the Petitioner's analysis, concluding that the claimed technology was obvious over Hankins alone or in combination with Munger and Treuhaft.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.UMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the Petitioner failed to prove unpatentability for claims 15-20 of the '595 patent. Claims 1-14 were mooted by disclaimer, resulting in no challenged claims being found unpatentable.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated filed a petition challenging a notice issued regarding a pre-grant opposition filed by respondent no. 3 against its Indian Patent Application. Vertex claims that the opposition could not have been filed after the Controller had already decided to proceed with the grant of the patent.
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Magnum Eco Tech. Partner filed an Appeal before the Madras High Court seeking to reverse a prior order by the Controller General of Patents regarding patent application 201841047838 and grant the patent in their favor. The petition also included a request for condonation of delay. However, the court noted that attempts to serve the Registry notice on the petitioner failed as the petitioner was not present at the given address. Consequently, the Court closed the appeal/petition.
Spencer'S Retail Limited v.Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others
Spencer'S Retail Limited filed a suit against Geetha Jorge Alias Geetha George & Others, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiff argued that the City Civil Court was not the proper forum for seeking relief due to restrictions in the City Civil Courts Act, 1953, and because the matter had already been adjudicated.
Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
M/s.Haryana Soap Factory (Sh.Krishan Kumar Jain) v.Sh.A.J.Saravanan & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Madras High Court judgment confirms the dismissal of Transfer Original Petitions filed by M/s.Haryana Soap Factory seeking rectification of specific trademarks (936165 and 1833170). The court noted that both parties had reached a compromise regarding the underlying dispute, which was formalized in a memo recorded by the District Court, Delhi. Consequently, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew their claims, leading to the dismissal of the petitions without costs.
Rukmini Devi And Ors. v.Union Of India And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a writ petition challenging the acceptance of an alleged trademark assignment by the Registrar. The core dispute involved complex succession issues among the heirs of the original assignor, leading to multiple conflicting claims regarding the validity of the deed. Recognizing the ongoing litigation and disputes, the court did not rule on the merits but instead directed the petitioner to file comprehensive objections with the Trademark Registry. This move ensures that the assignment is subject to a fresh de novo review and hearing, effectively pausing the previous decision.
M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. v.Indu Devi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd., directing the cancellation of a conflicting trademark, 'GOLDY,' held by Indu Devi. The court found that despite minor visual differences, the first respondent's mark was strikingly and deceptively similar to the petitioner's established marks ('GOLDIEE'). This decision reinforces the principle that phonetic similarity can outweigh superficial design elements in trademark disputes.
Sanofi v.Amgen, Regeneron
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2024-02-24) under reference UPC-001587, Sanofi appeared in dispute with Amgen, Regeneron concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products’ IPR petition against Evonik’s 10,471,380 B2 membrane‑gas‑separation patent is met with a detailed preliminary response. Evonik argues the petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability, misinterprets the claims, and that the cited references teach away. The Owner seeks denial of institution.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane technology patent (10471380), arguing the claims are obvious over prior art references Ungerank and Scholz. The petitioner asserts that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine these teachings to achieve the claimed features in gas separation.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
Air Products successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR on 23 claims of EVONIK's patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least Claim 1 would be obvious over Ungerank and Scholz. The Board rejected arguments that the prior art taught away from the claimed invention.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. v.EVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.
The IPR petition against EVONIK's gas separation membrane technology failed as the Petitioner could not establish unpatentability. The Board found that the combination of cited prior art references lacked a sufficient motivation to combine, upholding the patent's validity.
Dr. Vandana Parvez v.The Controller of Patents Office of Controller General of Patents
The appellants appealed the rejection of their patent application for a method/system related to interactive online digital content. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of novelty based on prior art D1 (the appellants' own withdrawn application). The Madras High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that citing the appellant's own withdrawn application as prior art was invalid and directing the Patent Office to expunge it from the public domain.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a communication system. The appellant argued that the grounds of rejection were not properly disclosed or overlooked by the Controller. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
Mitsui Chemicals Inc v.Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemicals Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 3877/DELNP/2009), which was rejected on grounds that the claims were unpatentable as a 'method of agriculture' (Section 3(h)) and that amendments violated Section 59. The Appellant argued that the original PCT filing supported the amended composition claims, making the refusal invalid.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The petitioner filed an application seeking the revocation of a suit patent granted to the respondents. The dispute involved whether a previous undertaking given by the respondents, restricting them from hindering the petitioner's business through distributors, should continue. The court ultimately held that the undertaking was no longer sustained.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.Life Style International Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'SPICE IT UP (Label)' registered in favor of Life Style International Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date. Consequently, the entire original petition was dismissed for default.
Tempting Brands Ag v.Mr.Parasmal Purohit
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Tempting Brands Ag, ordering the cancellation of Mr. Parasmal Purohit's registered trademark (No. 1690863). The court found that the respondent had literally copied the petitioner's mark, making only a minor cosmetic change ('66' to '69'). The judgment strongly condemned this act as theft and dishonest adoption, reinforcing the principle of protecting prior rights against subsequent imitation.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc. , Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Softw
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Pushpendra Yadav v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd
Pushpendra Yadav challenged an interim court order that restrained him from selling water purifiers or using specific marks, citing alleged infringement of Kent Ro Systems' registered design and trademarks. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction primarily because the relevant Design No.219309 had expired. However, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the passing off claim, which remains under consideration.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Ht Media Limited v.Coolboots Media Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Ht Media Limited against Coolboots Media Private Limited. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting exemptions and setting timelines for filing documents. Crucially, the court also initiated interim injunction proceedings regarding the alleged misuse of similar marks ('SHINE' vs 'OUTSHINE') and directed both parties to explore mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-21) under reference UPC-001601, FUJIFILM Corporation appeared in dispute with Kodak GmbH a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The parties filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and patent owner ICPillar LLC have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
Addala Sitamahalakshmi v.State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, a publishing house, challenged G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, which restricted book printing rights to one entity (Respondent No.4), leading to an inspection and seizure of the petitioner's books. The petitioner argued that their business was being unfairly targeted and that non-literary scientific books are not protected by copyright.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Mustafa Raza Dhorajiwala Sole Proprietor of M/s Kemei India v.Dinesh Kumar Proprietor of M/S Jai Laxmi Marketing and Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Kemei India against a copyright registration held by Jai Laxmi Marketing. The petitioner argues that the 'KEMEI' mark was improperly registered as a copyright despite its prior existence and registration as a trademark in 2013. The court has initiated proceedings, issuing notice to all parties and setting a timeline for filing replies, moving the case toward substantive dispute resolution.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase Bank's IPR against Identitii Limited, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Kennedy and Kurani-816.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed an order dated June 21, 2022, passed by the Patent Officer rejecting their patent application. The application, filed in 2017 as a national phase PCT filing, relates to video coding and decoding technology.
Shri Dhiraj Kumar v.R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Shri Dhiraj Kumar against R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd. The petitioner had challenged an injunction granted by the District Judge, arguing procedural flaws related to pre-litigation mediation and statutory bars under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court ruled that since the parties had already engaged in and failed mediation, re-arguing the necessity of pre-institution mediation was untenable. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding appeal restrictions under the TM Act, allowing the original suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off to continue.
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks; K.Suma Trading as Suma Oil Agencies
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark registration, arguing it was deceptively similar to its own mark. The petitioner also noted that the rival trademark had expired and not been renewed. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as having become infructuous, effectively upholding the status quo regarding the challenged registration.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Orchid Healthcare (A Division Of)
The Madras High Court allowed Alkem Laboratories Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's decision to register 'TAXTAM'. The court found that despite the registry listing several differences (such as product type or price), the marks 'TAXIM' and 'TAXTAM' were phonetically and visually deceptively similar. Citing established legal precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the rectification of the Trademark Register to protect Alkem's prior rights.
Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr v.Satyajit Herma & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Peak Xv Partners Advisors India LLP, restraining the defendant from using specific domain names bearing the 'PEAK XV' mark. The court recognized the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, despite the defendant claiming ignorance regarding trademark registration. Furthermore, the parties were directed to participate in mediation to seek an out-of-court settlement.
M/s.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v.Antony Adams
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing and passing off their trademarks 'Kalyan' and 'Kalyanjewellers' through the domain name <kalyanjewellers.com>. The court also issued a mandatory order directing the cancellation and subsequent transfer of the disputed domain name to the plaintiff, affirming the principles of cybersquatting remedies.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast opposes Entropic Communications' request to file new exhibits after PTAB final decisions in three IPRs, arguing the request is untimely and unsupported. The board has been asked to deny the request.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications has requested Director Review of the IPR involving Comcast’s challenge to patent 11,381,866. Comcast may file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days, and no additional briefing is permitted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '738 patent owned by Immersion Corporation, focusing on haptic feedback systems. The petitioner argues that various prior art references, including Pratt and Ku, anticipate or render the challenged claims obvious under 102 and 103. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in consumer electronics technology.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation filed a Petition challenging 13 claims of Resonant Systems' U.S. Patent No. 9,941,830. The challenge centers on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), arguing that the claimed linear vibration actuators are predictable combinations of prior art in haptics and control systems.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 covering vibration generation/haptics technology. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on combinations of prior art references like Houston and Goldenberg.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,369,081 regarding linear vibration actuators used in haptics/feedback devices. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a detailed examination of the patent's validity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast Cable Communications challenged Entropic's patent (11381866) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over various prior art references. The petitioner argues that Zhang anticipates key features and combinations of Zhang with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey render other claims obvious. The Board has instituted the proceeding based on these compelling unpatentability challenges.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB institution decision found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated unpatentability of numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board relied heavily on combinations of prior art references, notably Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, to support its findings against the patent owner. This outcome significantly strengthens the petitioner's position in the ongoing litigation.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute an IPR against Entropic's patent, citing the existence of a parallel petition. The Board determined that one petition was sufficient and denying the second would prevent unnecessary burden.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Comcast's claims against Entropic Communications. The grounds centered on anticipation and obviousness using prior art references like Zhang, Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The IPR concluded that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated claims 1-18 were unpatentable over prior art references based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a clear motivation to combine Kamieniecki and Konstantinos, overcoming the Patent Owner's arguments regarding redesign complexity.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB found all 82 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that Zhang et al. anticipates or renders obvious the claims through various combinations with Reisman, Jackson, and Pandey. Key findings included that Zhang's demultiplexer/selector satisfies the DFE limitation, and 'concurrently' does not require zero delay.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,210,362 unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the patent was anticipated or obvious over prior art references, primarily Zhang et al., in combination with other cited references.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application for 'Methods and Apparatus for Estimating Departure Time'. The rejection was based on the grounds that the invention lacked inventive step. The High Court found the impugned proceedings too cryptic and lacking in reasoning, leading it to allow the appeal.
Philip Morris Products S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Philip Morris Products S A appealed the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of patent application No. 201617029499. The appellant argued that the refusal violated natural justice principles and that the invention, which aids in smoking reduction, should not be barred under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act.
Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v.Nandini Lall & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions filed by Chestnut Heights Resorts Pvt. Ltd. against Nandini Lall & Anr., seeking cancellation of the 'JILLING' trademarks. Recognizing that these new petitions dealt with the same set of marks already under consideration in another proceeding, the court opted for judicial efficiency. The bench ordered the consolidation of all related matters to be heard together before a specific judge.
Fiitjee Ltd. v.Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.
D T Media And Entertainment Private Limited v.Premchand Palety
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a dispute concerning the use of educational ranking parameters. While the main suit was registered, the court issued critical interim directions regarding trademark usage and competition. The defendant was directed to immediately cease using identical language and numerical order for survey parameters that overlap with the plaintiff's 'EDUCATION WORLD' brand, while also agreeing to pre-litigation mediation to seek an amicable resolution.
R.K.Steel Industries Partnership Firm v.R.K.Impex India Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.