IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 101 of 218 · 6,517 total
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
Ht Process Controls Private Limited v.Ankur Gupta & Ors.
The petitioner, Ht Process Controls Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of its intellectual property rights over confidential information and technical know-how related to an automatic robotic system for gas cylinder handling. The Court passed several orders allowing various applications, including granting exemptions and directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct searches and seizures at the defendants' premises.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Mrs Arti Gupta & Anr. v.Puran Rana & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mrs Arti Gupta against Puran Rana, leading to the cancellation of the trademark 'KONVIO NEER' registered in Class 35. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the mark since 2018, while the respondent obtained registration much later in 2022. Citing provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the High Court ruled that the subsequent registration by the respondent was not made in good faith and constituted a contravention of statutory rights.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1. The Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing (scheduled for September 5, 2024) from German into English, arguing that its Korean representatives did not speak German. The court denied the request, holding that since Germany had designated English as an additional procedural language at the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the plaintiff could have chosen English as the procedural language and avoided the need for interpretation altogether. The plaintiff was instead permitted to hire its own interpreter at its own expense.
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH sued TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 3 221 117 before the Local Chamber Munich. After the main hearing on 16 April 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the paid court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Deutschland B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated July 11, 2024, concerning Apple's request to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the deadline for Ona Patents SL to file its response to the appeal. The court rejected Apple's acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in expediting the proceedings did not outweigh Ona's interests in a proper proceeding. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action by Ona against Apple based on EP 2 263 098, and Apple's prior request to change the procedural language from German to English, which had been rejected by the President of the Court of First Instance.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, contending that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition argues the Board misapplied the discretionary denial standards.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the facial‑recognition patent owned by FaceTec, leaving the institution standing.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges FaceTec's biometric patent in IPR2025-00106. The petitioner argues the PTAB correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that no discretionary denial applies. The Board’s institution decision remains in effect pending director review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the denial of its IPR was rejected, leaving the Board’s earlier decision intact. The Patent Owner contended the petitioner introduced new arguments and failed to provide claim constructions, justifying the denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio filed an authorized response defending the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no settled expectations justify discretionary denial.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s institution of IPR2025‑00108 against Jumio, arguing the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the proceeding duplicates ongoing district‑court litigation.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that the Board misapplied Fintiv factors and that the case duplicates ongoing litigation. The petition highlights ethical violations, overlapping issues, and time‑bar concerns.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the challenge to FaceTec's facial recognition patent.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against FaceTec’s facial‑recognition patent is met with a detailed response asserting that all Fintiv factors favor institution and that no discretionary denial applies.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00101, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Jumio Corp.'s request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00106, leaving the institution of FaceTec's patent intact.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate FaceTec's facial‑authentication patent (U.S. 11,874,910) on obviousness grounds, citing multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial under §314(a) and §325(d) is improper.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that its claimed camera‑optics technique is obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang, Tahk, and Suzuki. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑24.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation petitions the PTAB to invalidate FaceTec’s facial‑authentication patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Derakhshani, Tanii, Zhang and Tahk, and that discretionary denial is improper.
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.