IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 104 of 218 · 6,517 total
M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited v.Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
The Chhattisgarh High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited (owner of GOEL), argued that the respondents were deceptively using 'GOYAL GLOBAL' in the steel goods market to capitalize on its goodwill. While directing the Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously, the High Court maintained an interim restraint order preventing the named respondents from using the disputed marks until the final judgment.
Anonymous Claimant v.OrthoApnea S.L. and VIVISOL B BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP 2 331 036. The defendants filed a procedural application objecting to the claimant's inclusion of new facts, an equivalence-based infringement argument, and an adjusted petitum in the Reply to the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the defendants' main request, holding that the amendments were consistent with the procedural-evolutionary course of litigation and the purpose of Rule 13 RoP, but granted a two-week extension for the defendants to file their Rejoinder.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Ttk Prestige Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing on its design registration for the Svachh Deluxe Alpha pressure cooker. The defendant was set ex-parte after failing to respond adequately to the claims.
Bia Separations D.O.O. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bia Separations D.O.O. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.185/CHENP/2009 for 'METHOD FOR INFLUENZA VIRUS PURIFICATION'. The appeal challenged the Controller's finding that the invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sapporo Medical University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sapporo Medical University appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.1899/CHENP/2010 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to properly consider the prior art or the detailed explanations provided regarding inventive step. The High Court found the respondent's conclusion unsupported by material and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 20174704977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the invention was a computer program/implementable method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection (computer program vs. mathematical/statistical), leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 201747024977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming the invention was a non-technical computer program or mathematical method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection, leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. v.M/S Ignyt Electricals
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Radha Kishan Agarwal & Anr. challenging a Commercial Court order that had restricted their use of the trademark 'IGNYT' due to alleged infringement on M/S Ignyt Electricals' registered mark 'IGNYT'. The appellants argued they were merely distributors of genuine goods and sought permission to sell their existing stock. While the High Court noted procedural gaps in the lower court's decision, it deferred a final ruling on the stay application, listing the matter for further instructions from both parties.
ARM Limited and Others v.ICPillar LLC
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by ARM under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. ARM sought a declaration that ICPillar's Statement of grounds of appeal had not been served, or alternatively, an extension of the deadline for lodging its Statement of response. The Court of Appeal rejected the main request but granted the alternative request, ordering that the time period for ARM's Statement of response would end 15 days after the unredacted version of Exhibit 4 (an insurance policy) was made available to ARM's representative.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding EP 3 024 163. The court issued a consolidated confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, protecting information related to prior and ongoing license negotiations and internal business considerations. The court modified the preliminary order, limiting access to confidential information to specified persons and their legal representatives, and set a coercive penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per culpable violation.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands challenges a Request for Director Review filed by BuzzBallz over the eligibility of U.S. Patent No. 11,932,441, a design patent covering a pop‑top can lid. The petitioner argues the Board correctly found the patent eligible under the AIA and that the new design lacks written‑description support, urging denial of the request.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
The PTAB denied MPL Brands' request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the BuzzBallz patent case.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
BuzzBallz, LLC asks the PTAB Director to vacate the institution of a post‑grant review on its pre‑AIA design patent, arguing the Board misapplied written‑description standards and ignored expert testimony.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands contests the validity of BuzzBallz’s design‑patent for a beverage can lid, arguing that new matter was added to the parent application, making the patent eligible for post‑grant review under the AIA. The reply refutes the patent owner’s reliance on prior PTAB decisions and emphasizes examiner findings of new matter.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
NXP USA and Bell Semiconductor jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00168 after reaching a settlement, and the Board granted the termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision in IPR2024‑01006, finding that none of the challenged claims of the ‘909 lithium‑ion battery patent are unpatentable. LG Energy Solution’s obviousness arguments over multiple prior‑art combinations were rejected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology defends the PTAB’s claim construction for patent 8,565,331, asserting that “subsequently received signals” must be decoded after updating the channel estimate and that the Haustein reference does not teach the asserted limitations.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB denial of institution for its wireless‑channel‑estimation patent, arguing procedural and substantive errors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Empire Technology Development LLC
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Empire Technology’s patent was denied. The Board, led by Judge Ankenbrand, found the petition did not meet the required standards.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of BuzzBallz’s ’441 beverage‑container patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art cans and a lack of written description.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Bell Semiconductor, LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated filed an IPR challenging 12 claims of a Bell Semiconductor LLC patent related to Ball Grid Array (BGA) packaging reliability. The petitioner asserts that all claims are unpatentable over prior art by demonstrating predictable modifications using combinations of known semiconductor package designs and stress mitigation techniques.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution filed an IPR Petition challenging claims related to lithium ion batteries and nanomaterials. The petitioner argues that the claimed compositions are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, such as Ohata/Kavan or Lee/Wepasnick.
LG Energy Solution, Ltd. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
LG Energy Solution has filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,636,649, arguing that the claims related to Carbon Nanotube Composites are obvious. The challenge relies heavily on multiple prior art references demonstrating that the claimed features were already known in the field.
MPL Brands NV, Inc. v.BuzzBallz, LLC
MPL Brands NV challenges BuzzBallz's container patent (11,932,441) via Petition, asserting obviousness over combinations of prior art references related to plastic and metal container design.
SharkNinja, Inc. et al. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja filed an IPR petition challenging Dyson's patent (11044979) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed hot air styling methods are predictable combinations of prior art, specifically combining Saito and Lindsey references.
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.