IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 104 of 159 · 4,764 total
BOE Technology Group, Co. Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The Board found that the majority of claims (1, 3–7, 9–13, 15–18) were unpatentable over Reiner and Takahara based on obviousness. However, Claims 2, 8, and 14 survived the challenge, indicating a mixed outcome for the Petitioner.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar of Copyrights and Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed a suit against the Registrar of Copyrights alleging that respondents were selling mustard oil using an almost identical trade dress and packaging to the petitioner's product. The Delhi High Court addressed procedural matters, noting the emergence of evidence showing blatant copying by the respondents. While granting some time for the respondent to file necessary documentation, the court emphasized the seriousness of the infringement claim and fixed a firm date for the next hearing.
Informa Markets India Private Limited v.M/S 4Pinfotech And Anr
Informa Markets India Private Limited filed a petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing copyright registration (L-79443/2018) for the work titled 'Virtual Expo'. The petitioner challenged the validity of the registration, arguing that the document merely described generic benefits of conducting virtual expositions. The Delhi High Court examined whether this description constituted protectable literary material or was simply a documentation of an idea. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that since the content was abstract and extremely generic, it did not meet the threshold for copyrightability.
Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson (Pub) v.Controller General of Patents and Designs and Trademarks
This order in Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Aricsson vs Controller General of Patents and Designs deals with a patent application that has technically expired. Despite the expiration, the appellant raised arguments concerning whether telecommunication methods fall under the scope of 'algorithm' or 'business method', which would restrict them under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1997. The court acknowledged this academic issue and scheduled the matter for further hearing.
Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited (formerly Omeros Corporation) v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant (Rayner Surgical Ireland Limited/Omeros Corporation) filed an appeal challenging the order dated January 31, 2020, which refused its patent application for 'STABLE PRESERVATIVE-FREE MYDRIATIC AND ANTI-INFLAMMATORY SOLUTIONS FOR INJECTION'. The court also addressed applications regarding exemption from fees and condonation of delay.
Samsung Electronics Co,M v.Samsung Leasing & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Samsung Electronics. The court allowed a minor application concerning corporate name changes for one defendant, while simultaneously framing an additional issue to determine the validity and non-use of the plaintiff's 'SAMSUNG' trademarks. Furthermore, the court dismissed the defendants' attempt to prematurely adjudicate objections regarding the mode of proof during evidence, holding that such issues are best reserved for final arguments.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. v.Crystal Corporation & Ors.
The Delhi High Court modified an earlier ex-parte injunction in favor of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. after Defendant No. 1 successfully argued that the initial court findings regarding prior communications were incorrect. The Court found that the notices sent by the plaintiff were not received by Defendant No. 1, leading to a variation of the injunction. While the defendant must avoid using 'CRYSTAL' as the principal brand mark on its agro-products, it is permitted to continue using its trade name 'CRYSTAL CORPORATION' and associated logo.
Puneet Chhabra Proprietor Of Rama Wire Industries v.Kewal Krishan Bansal Proprietor Of M/S Vee Pee Bansal And Company
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rama Wire Industries (the appellant) seeking interim protection against a suit brought by Vee Pee Bansal and Company (the respondent). The core dispute involved allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant's claim to hold a copyright in its mark was dishonest, noting the striking similarity between the marks. Consequently, the court declined to grant any interim order in favor of the appellant.
Bot Organic Private Limited v.Piruz Khambhatta & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a challenge filed by Piruz Khambhatta against an earlier Commercial Court order that allowed the plaintiff, Bot Organic Private Limited, to amend its plaint. The core dispute involved alleged trademark infringement and passing-off concerning the mark 'RUS' used on fruit juice packaging versus the plaintiff's well-known mark 'RASNA'. The court upheld the amendment, finding that adding variants of the existing trade mark did not fundamentally change the nature or scope of the original suit.
Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited v.Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Kunj Bihari Food Processors Private Limited against Shree Shakambari Rice Mill Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of identical or deceptively similar labels and trade dress for rice products. This immediate relief prevents the defendants from continuing to manufacture or sell goods under the disputed marks until the full trial can take place.
Raaj Unocal Lubricants Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions concerning the registration of impugned trademarks. While an initial request for document exemption was granted, a subsequent interim application seeking directions was dismissed because the marks had already been registered. The court noted that despite the registrations, the core legal question regarding third-party rights under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act requires further consideration and set a date for re-notification.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google has filed a petition for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Dialect’s voice‑command patent. The petition contends the Board misapplied the Coffman reference and ignored unrebutted expert testimony, arguing that the disputed claim steps are obvious. Google requests that the decision be vacated and the IPR be instituted.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00750 after reaching a settlement, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok challenged a patent owner’s motion to terminate several IPRs over alleged failures to disclose a foreign party‑in‑interest and person‑eligibility issues. The PTAB denied the motion and initiated a sua sponte Director review, staying the IPRs pending further analysis.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The Director denied Google LLC's request for a rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-00746, keeping the original institution ruling intact. No new arguments or evidence altered the outcome.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google and Dialect reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-00750 after the trial had been instituted. The settlement agreement will be kept confidential per Board order.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Court decision.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla seeks Director review to overturn the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on its vehicle‑power‑management patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied the § 325(d) discretionary denial test, re‑hashing arguments already considered during prosecution.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
iQar Inc. has filed a Director Review Request challenging the PTAB’s institution of its U.S. Patent 10,850,616, asserting misapplication of § 325(d) and lack of deference to the examiner’s § 112 analysis. The petition seeks to overturn the institution and set proper precedent for future panels.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc. challenges the validity of Cellspin Soft's patent 9900766, alleging obviousness over various combinations of prior art references. The petition focuses heavily on combining Kahn with Bluetooth and Singh129 with Singh906 to invalidate claims related to mobile multimedia upload systems. This initial filing sets up a complex technical battleground in the PTAB.
Apple Inc. v.Poniatowski, Paul et al.
Apple Inc. filed a petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,270,578 in an IPR proceeding. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Wang, Dua, and Yong. This challenge focuses on mobile commerce features related to point-of-sale transactions.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
Tesla challenges iQar Inc.'s patent (10850616) in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Koebler650. The petitioner argues that combining existing technologies to improve vehicle power management was predictable for a POSITA.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok and its affiliates successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Cellspin Soft regarding wireless communication patents. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over multiple prior art references, including Singh129/Singh906 and Kahn/Bluetooth.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
TikTok Inc.'s challenge to Cellspin Soft's patent was instituted by the PTAB, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The Board focused on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) over prior art references including Hiroishi, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications. This decision sets up trial proceedings to determine if the combination of existing technologies renders the patent claims invalid.
TikTok Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The Director denied TikTok's IPR petitions against Cellspin Soft, citing precedent that bars foreign governments from participating in AIA proceedings. The decision vacated prior institution orders and terminated the review.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Dialect LLC's patent, challenging claims related to Natural Language Processing and Conversational AI. The Board found that prior art disclosure regarding context stack synchronization was sufficient to warrant further review under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent was denied by the PTAB, finding insufficient evidence of obviousness over prior art (Coffman, Kennewick, Ross). The Board agreed with the Patent Owner that the prior art disclosures were too high-level to support the combination claimed.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC successfully initiated an IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent (9031845) covering natural language speech processing in vehicles. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, focusing on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 using prior art references like Coffman, Julia, and Cooper.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Dialect LLC's patent on conversational AI was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Ronning.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Dialect LLC's speech recognition patent via IPR was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on its unpatentability grounds under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision maintains the validity of the '7398209 patent in the context of ongoing district court 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.