Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 213 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 20, 2024

Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 62535505

Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company has filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,533,300, which covers skid‑steer automatic grading technology. The petition argues the Board misapplied teaching‑away doctrine to the Funk reference and ignored advantages of the claimed combination.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÍCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

Stara filed a petition for Director Review seeking to invalidate claims of AGCO’s 11,665,989 patent covering rotating toolbar mechanisms for agricultural implements. The petitioner alleges the Board erred in denying institution, citing multiple prior‑art references that disclose all claim elements. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÍCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

STARA has requested Director Review of IPR2024-01459 against AGCO's patent 11,665,989. The patent owner may respond within five business days, limited to five pages and without new evidence.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company seeks director review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against a grading‑system patent owned by David’s Dozer V‑Loc System. The patent owner contends the petition misstates the law on motivation to combine and that the prior‑art teaches away, making review futile.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024

STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÍCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Court decision.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÍCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

STARA petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against AGCO's 11,665,989 patent covering a farm implement contouring toolbar, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of 15 claims.
patent · Sep 19, 2024

Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024

STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÍCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation

· IPR2024-01459

The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
patent denied · Sep 19, 2024

Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-01442

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 19, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · 103690130

The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of the Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a consistent disclosure model, directing that all seven PLAs held by the plaintiffs and the full Qualcomm agreement held by the defendants must be shown to all members of the Confidentiality Club.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 19, 2024

Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 196305516

The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of a Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a reciprocal disclosure model, requiring full access to PLAs for all members of the Confidentiality Club.
patent dismissed · Sep 19, 2024

Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) · 106840240

The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
patent settled · Sep 19, 2024

Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd

Delhi High Court · 199266856

This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 19, 2024

Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 186480003

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.
patent settled · Sep 19, 2024

Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc

Delhi High Court · 172943157

The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001256

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

KIPA AB v.Respondent

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · UPC-001255

This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
patent · Sep 18, 2024

Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001254

This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001252

This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-001250

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
patent terminated or settled · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
patent terminated or settled · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
patent · Sep 18, 2024

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy

· IPR2024-01390

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
patent instituted · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
patent Final Written Decision · Sep 18, 2024

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.

· IPR2024-01458

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
patent pending · Sep 17, 2024

Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab

Delhi High Court - Orders · P161025180

Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
1 •••212213214•••424
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →