IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 101 of 159 · 4,764 total
Future Bath Products Private Limited v.Corza International & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an application filed by Corza International challenging the validity of Future Bath Products' trademark 'CORSA'. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to use the mark for goods in Class 11, citing Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act. The court issued notice and set timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders before proceeding with the matter.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
The defendant in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 filed a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' notice before filing lawsuits. The claimants (respondents to the preliminary objection) countered that the standstill agreement did not affect the court's jurisdiction and that they had complied with the notice period. The Court of First Instance rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the violation of a standstill agreement does not constitute grounds for challenging the jurisdiction of the court.
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V. v.Respondent
This order concerns a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance, with German as the language of proceedings. The claimants, CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. (Dutch companies), requested simultaneous interpretation into Dutch, alternatively English, for both the interim hearing on May 29, 2024 and the oral hearing on August 23, 2024. The claimants argued that their managing directors, the responsible personnel, and their authorized representative Dr. Wim Maas do not speak German, and that as medium-sized enterprises they cannot be expected to provide multilingual case management.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes
The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation brought a patent infringement action against ten Xiaomi-related defendants concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163. The court addressed the defendants' requests to modify a provisional confidentiality order governing the production of documents. The court granted most modifications, including expanding the definition of legal representatives, increasing the number of reliable persons from one to three, removing the return/destruction obligation, adjusting the penalty provision to require culpability, and cleaning up duplicated obligations.
TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_498/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 057 321 delivered on 09/05/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 22/12/2023 TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found that all ten challenged claims of the patent were unpatentable. The decision concluded that the claims were either anticipated by or obvious over various cited prior art references in electrical stimulation therapy.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.
WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Advent Brand House Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the ongoing trademark dispute between Pernod Ricard India Private Limited and Advent Brand House Private Limited. Noting that certain respondents were unserved despite previous attempts, the court directed the issuance of fresh notices to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner was also instructed to serve the Trade Mark Attorney who represented Respondent No. 1 in the registration process. This procedural step ensures all parties are properly notified before further proceedings continue.
Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. v.Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order directing the continuation of litigation concerning the 'RATHI' trademark dispute between Mr. Anil Rathi & Ors. and Dsr Steel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Despite unsuccessful mediation efforts, the court scheduled the matter before a different bench for September 3, 2024, to continue addressing the disputed issues.
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.