Patent Cases

The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple appeals filed by The State of Jharkhand against various respondents. These appeals were decided based on the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous precedents. The court provided further clarifications and directions while settling these complex patent-related disputes.

Jharkhand High Court · P96808735

The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The Jharkhand High Court, exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) on January 31, 2024. The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling addresses various disputes arising under patent law within the state.

Madras High Court · P65864203

Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order dated 11.11.2016 concerning Patent Application No. 6334/CHENP/2009, which related to polyamide materials with high fluid barrier properties. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and was obvious in view of prior art documents D5 and D6.

patent · Jan 31, 2024

NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-001624

This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 794 928 B1, filed by NanoString Technologies Europe Limited against President and Fellows of Harvard College. Following the close of written pleadings, the judge-rapporteur held an interim conference addressing several procedural matters, including the translation of a prior art document, the admissibility of late-filed prior art (D46), the handling of auxiliary requests, and the value of proceedings. The court admitted D46 into the proceedings after the Defendant withdrew its objection, set the value of proceedings at EUR 7,500,000, and scheduled the oral hearing for 17 April 2024 in Munich.

patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00532

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims of LiTL LLC's '688 Patent, arguing that the portable computing device technology is obvious in light of various prior art combinations. The petition asserts that existing references disclose all elements of the invention, rendering the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

patent null · Jan 31, 2024

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00520

Dexcom, Inc. initiated this IPR petition against Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent, challenging multiple claims based on obviousness. The core argument is that the patented features are merely predictable combinations of prior art references (Stafford, Raymond, and Turner).

patent instituted · Jan 31, 2024

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00532

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

· IPR2024-00520

Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.

Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC

· IPR2024-00507

The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.

Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC

· IPR2024-00389

Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.

Jharkhand High Court · 20219388

The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of a series of interconnected Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.). The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling provides clarity and specific directions across multiple patent disputes involving various parties, thereby concluding the appellate proceedings.

Madras High Court · 109083401

Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.

Delhi High Court · 181491238

Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited

Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.

Madras High Court · 33619275

M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan

M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 74290842

Aryan Educational Society v.C.D. Goyal Foundation

In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Aryan Educational Society against C.D. Goyal Foundation. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for an ad-interim injunction notice, noting that the defendant was allegedly using a similar mark ('The Aryan School') in Haryana despite the plaintiff holding a registered trademark. Furthermore, the court formally registered the suit and granted various procedural exemptions to facilitate the ongoing litigation.

Delhi High Court · 116258213

V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal

The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.

patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 31, 2024

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Mohan Kumar Kotana

Delhi High Court - Orders · 88149644

The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 58899656

Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the ongoing trademark dispute between Taco Bell Corp. and Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises. The court granted certain procedural exemptions while directing parties to adhere strictly to commercial courts rules regarding document submission. Crucially, the main petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing mark (Registration No. 3628356) was advanced, with notice issued to the respondents to file their response within four weeks.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-001625

Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 30, 2024

Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation

· IPR2024-00508

Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00516

Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.

patent instituted · Jan 30, 2024

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC

· IPR2024-00457

Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC

· IPR2024-00511

Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.

patent terminated or settled · Jan 30, 2024

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

· IPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.

patent denied · Jan 30, 2024

Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.

· IPR2024-00514

The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.