IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 159 · 4,762 total
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
The appeal was filed challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 404239, which had lapsed due to non-payment of the renewal fee. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by an exigency in the attorney's family and that the restoration application was filed within the permissible period. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a granted patent should not be refused solely on procedural lapse if the restoration application is timely.
Vellaisamy Thavamani Pandi v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged an order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs, which refused to grant a patent for 'System for construction of composite U shaped reinforced girders bridge deck' under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellants argued that the refusal was arbitrary because the respondent failed to consider their foreign patents and made contradictory findings regarding inventive step.
Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals v.Sana Herbals Private Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Mohsin Dehlvi Proprietor Of Dehlvi Naturals against a lower court's decision concerning the consolidation of connected trademark rectification proceedings. The appellant argued that a prior transfer of a rectification petition involving the mark 'DEHLVI' should necessitate consolidating all related matters. However, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the procedural handling of the cases.
M/s.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works v.M/s.Ganga Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works against the Registrar's decision rejecting its opposition to Ganga Products' trademark application for 'DEVICE OF LORD SHIVA'. The court held that names of Hindu deities are not exclusive and cannot be monopolized, citing established Supreme Court precedents. While dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the appellant to seek cancellation under Section 47 if the mark is eventually registered.
VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, MERIL GMBH, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, INTERLUX, UAB, SORMEDICA, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against several Meril entities and related companies regarding EP3769722. The Defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the European Patent Office Opposition Division's decision on the patent's validity. After the Court of Appeal set aside an earlier order dismissing the stay request, the Court of First Instance again dismissed the stay request and decided to proceed with the oral hearing as planned on 16 January 2025.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Valeo Electrification
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Magna against a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 320 602. The Court of First Instance had exempted Magna's supply obligations for five BMW models but omitted the BMW 2 Series Gran Coupé (F74) from the exemption list. The Court of Appeal found that Magna had clearly identified the 2 Series Gran Coupé in its submissions and that the CFI should have included it in the exemption, ordering the injunction's effect suspended as to that model until the appeal is decided.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Respondent
Hand Held Products, Inc. filed an application under Rule 109 of the Rules of Procedure requesting simultaneous interpretation from German into English for the oral hearing scheduled for January 9, 2025, in proceedings concerning EP 3 866 051. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request for court-funded interpretation, holding that the mere fact that internal employees of Hand Held Products who do not speak German would attend the hearing did not justify ordering such measures, particularly since Hand Held Products had voluntarily chosen German as the procedural language. The subsidiary request for interpretation arrangements at the applicant's own cost was addressed under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent No. EP 3 490 258 B1 and was decided by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 11, 2024. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, brought the action against fifteen HP entities across Europe, with Access Advance LLC intervening in support of the plaintiff. The decision was rendered by a panel consisting of Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and technically qualified judge Augarde.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott B.V., Abbott, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott France, Abbott Logistics
1. The order pursuant to Rule 36 RoP issued by the judge-rapporteur relates to adding some argu- ments to the debate related to some specific terms regarding claim interpretation, but it did not authorise the defendant to raise a new ground for revocation. The UPC procedure is a front-loaded system and the Court finds no legitimate reason for the defendant, which had already stated its own claim interpretation in its Statement of Defence and counterclaim, to raise a new ground for revocation at
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, Netgear Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich concerning an application for interim measures filed by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities. The dispute concerns European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321, both declared essential to the WiFi-6 standard. The order addresses the court's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) and (c) EPGÜ to grant interim measures protecting against threatened foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement injunctions, holding that such injunctions violate the European right to access to justice under Art. 47 EU Charter and the German constitutional right under Art. 2(1), 19(4) GG, and qualify as tortious acts under § 823(1) BGB.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Halozyme has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to overturn its institution of a post‑grant review of the ’600 hyaluronidase protein patent, arguing procedural errors and an improper claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC filed a response defending the institution of a post‑grant review of Halozyme’s enzyme patent. The brief rebuts Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments, emphasizing that the Board’s earlier findings remain sound.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck files a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s protein‑based contraceptive patent, arguing the claims lack written description and enablement. The reply emphasizes that the specification does not support the broad genus of modified PH20 polypeptides claimed.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for a review of the PTAB’s institution decisions in four Halozyme patent cases, leaving the institution findings intact.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,184,130 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Ericsson, Inc. v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Pat. 11,952,600, arguing that the claims lack written description, are not enabled, and are obvious over prior art.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑11 of Skyworks’ 9,148,194 RF switch patent, asserting obviousness over the Huang and Seshimo references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s patent on modified PH20 polypeptides in a PGR proceeding. The Board found likelihood of prevailing based on arguments regarding the genus's scope and potential lack of enablement/obviousness.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted trial on all 20 claims of the '947 patent, finding sufficient evidence that the claims are obvious over combinations of Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would be motivated to combine these references for location tracking and targeted advertising purposes.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs lost its IPR challenge against Fullthrottle Technologies regarding location determination and advertising targeting. The PTAB denied institution because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing over the cited prior art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Micron against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND memory claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Kim, Park, and Fang.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v.SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
Fena Private Ltd v.Balwinder Kumar & Anr.
Fena Private Ltd successfully petitioned for the cancellation of a similar trademark, 'NIPPU,' registered by Balwinder Kumar in Class 3 goods. The Delhi High Court found that Fena had established prior rights and extensive goodwill with its mark 'NIP' since 1976. Given the identical nature of the goods (detergents/cleaning preparations) and the deceptive similarity between the marks, the court ruled that the impugned registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon Fena's reputation, leading to its removal from the Register.
Financiere Batteur Sas v.Kalai Arasu
Financiere Batteur Sas successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to cancel a registered trademark, 'Physiolac AR,' held by Kalai Arasu. The petitioner argued that the mark was adopted in bad faith and had suffered prolonged non-use, violating Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court agreed, finding that the lack of genuine use for over five years demonstrated malafide intent to ride on the petitioner's established international reputation. Consequently, the trademark registration was ordered to be removed from the Register.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company appealed an order from The Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on non-speaking orders and failed to properly consider their contentions regarding prior art documents. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION v.MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, INTERLUX, UAB
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Nordic-Baltic Regional Division) in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP3769722. The order addresses multiple case management issues raised during an interim conference, including the value of the case, scheduling relative to parallel EPO opposition proceedings, admissibility of late-filed attacks on inventive step, and various other procedural requests. The Court set the total case value at 6,000,000 EUR, declined to reschedule the oral hearing, excluded certain late-filed inventive step attacks, and ruled on the admissibility of auxiliary requests, equivalence arguments, and expert-related requests.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This case concerns an order by the Court of Appeal regarding coercive penalties in proceedings involving European Patent 4 108 782. The court addressed whether the setting aside of a preliminary injunction order retroactively removes the legal basis for subsequent decisions ordering payment of coercive penalties for alleged violations occurring before the setting aside. The Court of Appeal held that the setting aside of a first-instance preliminary injunction order under Art. 75(1) EPGÜ and Rule 242.1 RoP is generally retroactive, meaning the order is deemed to have had no legal effect from the beginning, thereby eliminating the legal basis for any subsequent coercive penalty decisions.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.