Patent Cases

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-001554

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH

This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled the IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 27, 2024

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00730

Daingean Technologies Ltd. opposes AT&T and other petitioners’ IPR request on U.S. Patent 11,196,509, asserting that the cited Lee and Zheng references fail to teach the patent’s specific code‑block sizing and grouping features, and that the petition relies on hindsight.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review by joint motion.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,327,607 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC

· PGR2024-00022

Court decision.

patent null · Mar 27, 2024

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC

· PGR2024-00022

Voltage, LLC has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Shoals Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,689,153 covering solar lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under § 112. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

patent null · Mar 27, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00644

AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2024

Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC

· PGR2024-00022

The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.

patent instituted · Mar 27, 2024

Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2024

Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00730

The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.

patent denied · Mar 27, 2024

AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.

· IPR2024-00644

The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.

patent remanded · Mar 27, 2024

Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · 129725323

Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.

patent pending · Mar 27, 2024

City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · 77460699

The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent, 'a self locking glazing system'. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and directed the parties to proceed with the suit. The Defendant contested the injunction, raising objections regarding the validity and suppression of the patent.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2024

Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications

Madras High Court · 176553457

Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.

patent mixed · Mar 27, 2024

Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Bombay High Court · 164840328

The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2024

M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar

Madras High Court · 90198100

The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 27, 2024

Up Hotels Clarks Limited v.Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn and Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 124031690

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Up Hotels Clarks Limited, cancelling a competing trademark registration held by Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established 'CLARKS' brand, which possesses significant goodwill and reputation dating back decades. Despite the respondent's claims of honest adoption, the court determined that the similarity, coupled with the identical class of services (hotels/restaurants), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, thus violating trademark law.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001555

NOVAWELL v.C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED

1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_397/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/03/2024 APPLICANT: C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Represented by Denis Schertenleib RESPONDENT: NOVAWELL

Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2024-00726

Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Mar 26, 2024

InfoExpress defends its Network Access Control patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, asserting the Board correctly found no unpatentable claims. The petitioners’ new arguments are deemed untimely and forfeited.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent denied · Mar 26, 2024

Cisco and Fortinet successfully defended claims of InfoExpress’s network‑access control patent in IPR2024‑00677; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s request for review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00677 and related cases. The order confirms that no Director Review will be granted.

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent null · Mar 26, 2024

CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.

Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2024-00726

Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.

patent null · Mar 26, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.

patent denied · Mar 26, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed a Petition challenging 11 claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8578444) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann renders the claimed network access control features predictable to a POSITA.

Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

· IPR2024-00726

Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.

patent instituted · Mar 26, 2024

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.