IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 106 of 218 · 6,517 total
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A has filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its application (No. 201617028283). The refusal was based on the ground that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, specifically concerning E-cigarettes.
M/S Jay Plastic Company & Ors. v.M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trade dress and trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Jay Plastic Company against M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for an immediate local commission, allowing a Local Commissioner to search the defendants' premises and seize goods bearing deceptively similar packaging and marks (SPARROW vs ARROW). This decisive step allows the plaintiffs to gather crucial evidence of infringement and unfair competition while the main suit proceeds.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd v.M/S Triad Shoes
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd, which is pursuing a suit against M/S Triad Shoes for trademark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from advance service requirements. Crucially, the court passed an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction, authorizing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged infringing goods.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, which protects a sanitary tub installation with C-shaped rim and plastic foam profile strips. The court found that the defendant infringed the patent in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands through its shower tray products and profile strip sets, ordering injunctive relief, recall, removal from distribution channels, information disclosure, and provisional damages of EUR 10,000. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with the patent being maintained in amended form, resulting in a 50/50 cost split on the counterclaim and 15/85 split on the infringement claim.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited & Umedwings Netherlands B.V.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Premium Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH entities) access to information about video streaming processes disclosed in their reply and a witness statement. The court partially granted the application, classifying the streaming-related information as confidential and limiting access on the plaintiffs' side to their legal representatives, internal assistants, external experts upon request, and three specifically named corporate employees.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that the ’648 patent’s preamble is non‑limiting and that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. It also attacks the patent owner’s § 315(b) time‑bar defense.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The USPTO denied Nintendo’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00668, leaving the Board’s ruling in place.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB denied Nintendo’s petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs against American GNC’s patents, leaving the original rulings unchanged.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's '648 patent, arguing that its inertial measurement unit (IMU) technology is obvious. The petition cites multiple combinations of prior art references to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in claims 1 and 4.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against American GNC Corporation regarding angular rate measurement technology (Patent 6508122). The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 103, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1 and 3 of patent 6508122 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining multiple prior art references, including Fujiyoshi, Kumar, Cox, and Townsend.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited v.Arvind Fashions Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited against the trademark registration of 'NNNOW'. The dispute centered on removing specific descriptions of services from the impugned registration. Crucially, both parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo before the court. Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
Nokia Technology GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. Mala Technologies Ltd. filed an Application to amend the patent within its Defence to revocation but initiated the separate CMS workflow for the amendment application late. The Court rejected Nokia's request to declare the Application to amend inadmissible, holding that ambiguities in the CMS should not prejudice parties and that the amendment application was filed within the prescribed time limit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed a procedural application seeking to have the infringement action declared manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that the claimant's representative was non-compliant with the code of conduct due to his multiple roles (inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director) and that the statement of claim was insufficient. The Court of First Instance rejected both grounds and dismissed the application.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
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.