Patent Cases

12,989 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,823 European UPC 1,592 US PTAB 8,574

Page 64 of 433

patent mixed · Aug 30, 2024

R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA/31/2023

R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 30, 2024

Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · IPDPTA No. 12 of 2023

Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
patent pending · Aug 30, 2024

Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 66/2024

The petitioner appealed an earlier decision concerning a patent application related to insect control methods. The court also addressed two interlocutory applications: one granting exemption from filing originals, and another condoning a 13-day delay in filing the main appeal.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 30, 2024

Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 318/2022

Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application titled 'Auto-Selection of Media Files.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed method for automatically selecting media files based on user preference (confidence level) was non-patentable under Section 3(k). The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that the patent be proceeded for grant as amended.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 29, 2024

Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 323/2022

Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2024

Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · 2024:HHC:7518 (OMP No.540 of 2024 in COMS No.13 of 2024)

The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging infringement of its patents and design rights concerning axial fans. The defendants moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law because the plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 28, 2024

Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh High Court · OMP No. 539 of 2024

The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
patent denied · Aug 27, 2024

Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG

Munich (DE) Local Division · ORD_46277/2024

Hand Held Products sought an injunction against Scandit AG for infringing EP 3 866 051, a patent covering digital scanning devices. The Munich Local Court analyzed the possibility of indirect infringement stemming from the software library. Ultimately, the court denied the request for interim measures, finding that the complexity and variability in hardware/software configuration prevented the necessary certainty required to establish direct liability against the respondent.
patent partially granted · Aug 27, 2024

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P v.Lama France

Paris (FR) Local Division · App_41707/2024

This procedural order addressed a request by Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) to call a witness in its infringement action against Lama France. While the court granted the request for the witness to testify orally in English, it rejected Lama's plea for simultaneous interpretation between French and English. The ruling emphasizes the practical application of UPC rules regarding language proficiency and procedural economy.
patent pending · Aug 27, 2024

Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · ORD_47657/2024

This UPC decision addresses critical procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning a herbicide composition patent. The court clarified the burden of proof for product claims, stating that applicants do not need to prove why the composition has all features, only that it does or will. It also set strict limits on validity challenges in summary proceedings, requiring respondents to narrow their arguments to three key points. These rulings provide important guidance for practitioners navigating urgent infringement actions at the UPC.
patent remanded · Aug 27, 2024

Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India

Madras High Court · CMA(PT)/37/2023

The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 693/2018

Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 27, 2024

YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 442/2024

YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
patent granted · Aug 26, 2024

Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Ballinno B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · App_45255/2024

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for security for costs in an appeal proceeding concerning EP 1 944 067. The Kinexon companies and UEFA successfully argued that the respondent, Ballinno B.V., lacked sufficient financial means to guarantee the reimbursement of legal expenses. Consequently, the court mandated Ballinno to provide € 25,000 in security for costs. This ruling reinforces the UPC's ability to manage litigation risk by ensuring that parties with questionable financial standing can be required to secure their potential cost obligations.
patent pending · Aug 26, 2024

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH a.o.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_54/2023

This UPC decision between Avago Technologies and Tesla addresses critical procedural aspects of a complex infringement and revocation case concerning power control systems used in vehicles. The court clarified that initial delays due to CMS workflow usage are acceptable, providing flexibility early in the proceedings. Crucially, it affirmed the principle of partial revocation under Article 65(3) EPC, meaning claims can be invalidated selectively rather than requiring total patent destruction.
patent pending · Aug 26, 2024

Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS

Copenhagen (DK) Local Division · ORD_48581/2024

The provided document snippet lacks any substantive information regarding the dispute. It only contains signatures and dates from August 26, 2024. Therefore, no analysis of the case's significance or legal implications can be performed.
patent granted · Aug 23, 2024

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_44130/2024

This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning it with the patent's granted language. The Court found that despite initial objections regarding admissibility and local business requirements, the balance of interests favored the defendants. The ruling emphasizes that in cases involving multinational entities, the practical needs for coordination often outweigh the general rule favoring the claimant's convenience.
patent granted · Aug 23, 2024

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · App_48229/2024

Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
patent granted · Aug 22, 2024

Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC_CFI_75/2023

This UPC Order addressed a request for public access to documents in a revocation action, following the parties' settlement. The Court ruled that once proceedings conclude by agreement, the general interest in transparency outweighs concerns about procedural integrity. Access was granted to the written pleadings and evidence, but only after strict redactions were applied to protect confidential commercial information and personal data.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 22, 2024

Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 708/2024

In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France, SARL; Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · App_46219/2024

This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Valeo Electrification to lift an existing confidentiality order concerning EP 3 320 602 B1. The Court upheld the protection of confidential information, classifying specific documents submitted by the Defendants (Magna entities) as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. Consequently, the Applicant's request to remove these restrictions was dismissed, reinforcing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in UPC proceedings.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

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

Luxembourg (LU) · App_47290/2024

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding the timing of written submissions in an ongoing patent dispute involving Apple and Ona Patents SL. The court strictly interpreted the Rules of Procedure, holding that requests for further pleadings must be filed before the rapporteur concludes the written phase and schedules the oral hearing. Consequently, the appellants' late submission was rejected, allowing the case to proceed as planned.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_45292/2024

This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning an order from the Court of First Instance that rejected Microsoft's application to declare Suinno's infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The court ruled that such orders, which deal with case management and procedural admissibility (R.361 RoP), are not subject to discretionary appeal under Rule 220.3 RoP. Instead, they must be challenged via an application for review by the panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.

Luxembourg (LU) · ORD_45793/2024

This UPC appeal addressed the scope of confidentiality protections and the inclusion of in-house counsel under Rule 262A RoP. The claimants argued that their respondents' US-based in-house patent attorneys posed an inherent risk of misusing confidential information for parallel litigation strategies, demanding a 'prosecution bar.' However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that abstract risks are insufficient to deny access if no concrete evidence of misconduct exists. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural necessity and expert involvement often outweigh theoretical confidentiality concerns in UPC proceedings.
patent pending · Aug 21, 2024

HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE

Paris (FR) Local Division · ORD_47694/2024

This procedural order in the HPDC v LAMA infringement case addressed disputes over the scope of evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court strictly applied the Rules of Procedure, limiting what could be debated based on previous submissions. This ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to the structured phases of written proceedings within the UPC.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · App_43845/2024

This UPC Central Division decision addressed a procedural application seeking to stay revocation proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal against a denial of provisional measures. The Court firmly rejected Ballinno B.V.'s request, emphasizing that allowing such indefinite delays would violate the fundamental right to effective legal protection and contradict the UPCA's goal of ensuring final hearings occur within one year. This ruling reinforces the UPC's commitment to maintaining procedural efficiency and timely justice in revocation actions.
patent denied · Aug 21, 2024

AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.

Luxembourg (LU) · App_47039/2024

This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters concerning an appeal filed by Aylo companies against a prior local court order. The core issue was whether the parties could unilaterally submit additional arguments under Rule 9.1. The Board firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that all supplementary submissions must be approved by the presiding judge in accordance with Rules 36 and 220.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces strict procedural control within the UPC litigation framework.
patent pending · Aug 21, 2024

Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 795/2022

The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
patent remanded · Aug 21, 2024

Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 191/2022 & I.A. 9441/2022

The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
patent denied · Aug 20, 2024

EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED

Nordic Baltic Regional Division · App_14299/2024

In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by the Defendants to stay infringement proceedings pending the outcome of an opposition filed at the EPO. The Court rejected the application, emphasizing that the primary legal basis for such a stay requires the expectation of a rapid final decision from the EPO. Given the likelihood of appeals following the opposition, the court determined that the condition for staying the case was not met, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
1 •••636465•••433
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 →