IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 100 of 159 · 4,764 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division Milan, in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP2145848 owned by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Indian defendant Bhagat Textile Engineers. The order addressed the conduct of an interim conference previously scheduled for May 27, 2024, balancing the principle of transparency and public access to judicial proceedings against the parties' right to protection of confidential information. The court ordered that the parties file summaries of points to be discussed, that the conference be open to the public unless confidential matters arose, and that the proceedings be recorded.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, filed an infringement action on November 30, 2023, against fifteen HP-related entities across Europe, alleging infringement relating to HEVC-capable computers. The order addresses the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the claims (Klagebeschränkung) under Rule 263.1 and .3 of the Rules of Procedure.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v.Respondent
This case concerns three interlocutory applications filed by the defendants (UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH) in proceedings brought by Ballinno B.V. regarding European Patent EP1944067. The defendants sought an order requiring the claimant to provide security for costs of at least €200,000, an adjustment of the value in dispute to €2,000,000, and the allocation of a technically qualified judge to the panel. The defendants argued that Ballinno, a Dutch company with unpaid issued capital of EUR 1 and no known assets other than the patent in suit, was unlikely to be able to reimburse litigation costs.
Alimentary Health Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alimentary Health Limited appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application (No. 3989/DELNP/2012), which covered a formulation using the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium longum NCIMB 41676 (AH1714). The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under various sections of the Patent Act. The Delhi High Court set aside this refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The court provided detailed directions to the Controller, requiring a thorough reassessment focusing on novelty, specific dosage/methodology, and whether the claims relate to second medical use.
Syngenta Participations Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Syngenta appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 872/DELNP/2011) for 'Crop Safeners' by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs. The primary objection was the lack of specification regarding the ratio of constituents and novelty issues. The High Court found that the suggested amendments could address the non-specification issue and remanded the application for a fresh hearing.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Perilla Life Science P. Ltd & Anr.
Sun Pharma Laboratories sought the cancellation of the trademark 'G-VER,' registered by Perilla Life Science P. Ltd, alleging contravention of the Trade Marks Act. Although Sun Pharma raised grounds based on Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Act, the court noted that Respondent No. 1's counsel stated her client had discontinued use of the mark and had no objection to its cancellation. Consequently, the Delhi High Court disposed of the petition with a direction compelling the respondent to file the formal application for trademark cancellation.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zeelab Pharmacy Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'OMEZEE' and 'OMEZEE-DM' for pharmaceutical products similar to the plaintiff's established mark 'OMEZ'. This immediate relief prevents the defendant from continuing manufacturing or marketing the infringing products until the full trial.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.M/S Shri Sai Foods & Beverages & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, Bisleri International Private Limited, an extension of 90 days to execute local commissions in a trademark infringement suit. The court also appointed four additional advocates as local commissioners. This order facilitates the quantification of damages by allowing detailed inspection and inventory of infringing goods at the defendants' premises.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd. Et al.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying price information in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings against multiple Hanshow entities. The key legal principle established was that patent claim features must always be interpreted in the light of the entire claim.
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3883277, which relates to electronic shelf labels for displaying information such as prices in retail environments. The appellant, VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA), challenged an order from the Local Chamber Munich dated December 20, 2023, in proceedings involving the respondents Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd and its German, French, and Dutch subsidiaries. The appeal concerned the interpretation of patent claims, the scope of protection, and alleged infringement in the context of an application for provisional measures.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held 16 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s adaptive‑rate streaming patent unpatentable as obvious over Ogdon and Allen, with two additional claims invalidated over Ogdon, Allen, and SMIL 2.0. The remaining nine claims were upheld.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV Media’s request for rehearing of the final written decision in IPR2024-00046, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction or consideration of prior art. The petition’s arguments on claim 7 were deemed untimely and unsupported.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 9, 11‑19, and 21 of DISH’s ’798 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable, while the remaining challenged claims survived.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
BizLink defends the PTAB’s finding that claims 1‑3 and 7‑12 of Anderson’s 8,808,017 patent are anticipated by the 1958 Winkler reference, urging the Director to deny the request for review.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB denied Bizlink Technology's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00687 concerning patent 8,808,017. The prior decision remains in effect.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Petitioners challenged LANCIUM LLC's patent on renewable power integration in flexible datacenters, arguing that the claims are obvious over combinations of prior art like Pelio and Chapel. The core dispute centers on whether combining known concepts for dynamic power delivery renders the patented technology predictable.
fuboTV Media Inc. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. challenged DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s '554 Patent in an IPR proceeding regarding adaptive bitrate streaming technology. The petitioner argues that the claims are obvious over prior art references Ogdon and Allen, potentially combined with SMIL 2.0. This challenge targets fundamental methods of video segmentation and quality switching.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to challenge Anderson Power Products' patent (8808017), arguing that claims are unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner cited multiple prior art references, including Winkler, Kataoka, Poliak, and The Handbook. The petition was instituted by the Board.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
Cholla Energy LLC et al. successfully had their patent claims instituted at the PTAB, asserting that LANCIUM LLC's power delivery patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argued that combining prior art references like Pelio and Chapel would render the challenged claims unpatentable in the data center space.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
Bizlink Technology initiated an IPR against Anderson Power Products regarding electrical connector claims 1-4 and 7-12, alleging anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board instituted the proceeding, finding sufficient evidence to proceed on all challenged claims.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al. v.Ander Power Products, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims unpatentable based on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'insulating' as 'electrically insulating' and 'within' as 'on the inside of.'
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs alleged infringement of their statutory rights over Indian Patent No. 224186. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The case involves allegations of patent infringement regarding product patent IN 268632 and process patent IN 464646.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Devender Kumar
The Plaintiff filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 3841841 related to a suspo-emulsion of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The parties mutually resolved their disputes and agreed to a compromise.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications in the patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and others. The court disposed of the application seeking exemption from mediation and dismissed the application filed by Defendant No. 5 seeking deletion from the array of parties, affirming that all defendants are necessary for the dispute.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.Union of India
The appellants filed an appeal challenging a single bench order that had dismissed their writ petition. The original petition questioned the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court admitted the appeal but dismissed the prayer for stay, stating that the statute remains valid until struck down.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
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.