IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 106 of 159 · 4,764 total
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR for DISH Network against Entropic Communications, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any ground. The dispute centers on whether specific probe packet techniques in coaxial networks are obvious.
TESLA, INC. v.iQar Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Tesla's patent 7,925,426 against iQar Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claim.
NJOY, LLC et al. v.JUUL Labs, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR petition for NJOY against JUUL Labs, finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds. The Board found insufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success in combining various prior art references across multiple claims.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
Schneider Electric Buildings Americas Inc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenges the Assistant Controller's order dated January 23, 2024, which rejected Appellant's patent application (No. 6956/DELNP/2014) under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request and directed parties to file written submissions.
Cassiopea Spa v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cassiopea Spa filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application (No. 655/DELNP/2010) under Section 15 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court granted condonation of delay and set out directions for further proceedings in the appeal.
Dark Brown Through Proprietor v.State Of Haryana And Others
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a petition filed by Dark Brown Through Proprietor alleging trademark infringement by Respondent No. 6, noting that local police authorities had failed to act on the petitioner's complaint. While not delving into the merits of the infringement claim itself, the court issued a directive compelling Respondents No. 2 and 3 (police/authorities) to consider and decide the petitioner's representation within two months. This order serves as an administrative nudge to ensure timely action against alleged IP violations.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Keestrack N.V. v.Respondent
Keestrack N.V., the claimant and patent holder of EP3713672, filed a request to withdraw its patent infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Local Division The Hague, with the defendant's consent. The defendant experienced technical difficulties with the digital case management system (CMS) that delayed its formal response, though it had submitted its consent by email on the original deadline. The court accepted the late CMS filing as timely given the email submission and granted the withdrawal request.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references Demircin and Kimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung also addresses discretionary denial provisions of the AIA.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. successfully instituted an IPR against Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC regarding a semiconductor verification patent (7603636). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over multiple combinations of prior art references under 103.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
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.