IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 107 of 159 · 4,764 total
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns two generic applications (App_19959/2024 and App_23242/2024) lodged in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after the closing of the written procedure, proposing one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The claimant Meril Italy srl submitted comments leaving the admission decision to the Court's discretion while requesting additional time to file an additional defence if the amendment was admitted. The presiding judge addressed the Court's discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP regarding the admission of subsequent requests to amend a patent after the written procedure has closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Paris Seat) in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825. The defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, filed a subsequent application to amend the patent after a previous amendment application had been rejected and after the closing of the written procedure. The Court recognized its discretionary authority to admit such a subsequent amendment request, provided that the claimant's right to defence was preserved through the possibility of filing an additional defence if the amendment was admitted.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
Panasonic Holdings Corporation, plaintiff in a standard-essential patent infringement action concerning EP 3 096 315, sought a court production order directed against itself to compel the disclosure of two specific license agreements. The plaintiff argued that confidentiality clauses in those agreements prevented voluntary production, and that its license partners had either failed to respond or refused consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order providing fundamental guidance on the requirements for production orders in standard-essential patent disputes, following the Reporting Judge's prior directions of March 19, 2024 and the plaintiff's responsive statement of April 15, 2024.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This order concerns an application by Carrier Corporation seeking review of a decision by the judge-rapporteur regarding the admissibility of patent amendments in revocation proceedings. BITZER Electronics had filed a revocation action against Carrier Corporation's European patent EP 3 414 708 limited to claim 1, and Carrier Corporation filed a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent, some of which related to non-attacked claims. The Court held that a request to amend a patent must refer only to claims that have been challenged, rendering amendments to unchallenged claims inadmissible.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. brought a claim against Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European patent EP 2 697 391 B1 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf. The court issued an order on 30 April 2024 concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206.1 RoP in conjunction with Rule 211.1 RoP, following oral proceedings held on 26 March 2024. The order addresses several key legal questions, including the presumption of entitlement to be registered as patent proprietor, the interpretation of stated purposes in patent claims, the standard for knowledge of infringement, and the applicability of security for costs in urgent proceedings.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petitions for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in PGR2024-00026, which challenges a construction‑equipment patent owned by Guntert & Zimmerman. The petitioner, GOMACO, had sought review but the request was rejected.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman has asked the PTAB for permission to file a reply brief in its post‑grant review against GOMACO, citing alleged mischaracterizations and new arguments by the petitioner. The request emphasizes good cause and a rapid turnaround.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
In PGR2024-00026, the patent owner seeks Director Review of the proceeding. The petitioner has a brief window to respond without new evidence.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all fifteen claims of GOMACO’s slipform paving machine patent are obvious over a combination of the Commander III manual, Rio’s rotary actuator, and other prior art, cancelling the entire patent.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The USPTO Director denied GOMACO's request for a review of the institution decision in a post‑grant review of patent 11,772,723, leaving the institution in place.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Gomaco urges the PTAB Director to deny G&Z’s review request, arguing that the Board’s obviousness finding for the ’318 slipform paver patent is fully supported by the CIII and Rio prior art. The petitioner contends no claim construction is needed and that the Board’s reasoning is adequate.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Micron's challenge to Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness over the Toyama reference.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The patent owner has asked the PTAB Director to review the IPR, and the petitioner must respond within five business days with a limited brief. No new evidence is allowed.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7 of its ‘723 slipform paver patent. The petition alleges obviousness over the CIII manual, Rio and Files patents, and a lack of written description for a transducer placement. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the proceeding.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera AG et al. challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,697,028 held by DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge focuses on the combination of prior art references to demonstrate that specific Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) illuminator claims are unpatentable.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation (Petitioner) challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,535,318 via Petition, arguing that claims 1-8 are obvious over prior art references CIII and Rio. The Petitioner contends a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art would have been motivated to combine these references to improve slipform paver efficiency.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. filed an IPR challenging Yangtze Memory Technologies Company's 3D NAND Flash Memory patent (10658378). The petition asserts that the claimed features are obvious in light of prior art references like Toyama and Mushiga.
Biofrontera AG et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR challenge brought by Biofrontera AG against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103).
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO Corporation v.Guntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
GOMACO Corporation successfully challenged Guntert & Zimmerman's patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found that the Petitioner persuasively demonstrated Office error by failing to adequately consider relevant prior art, leading to the institution of the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution at the PTAB against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found sufficient evidence for unpatentability under both §102 and §103 over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron successfully established the unpatentability of five claims (15, 16, 17, 19, and 20) over prior art references Toyama, Mushiga, and Makala. The Board found that various embodiments in the prior art taught all limitations of the challenged claims.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
UPL Limited v.The Controller Of Patents Designs And Ors
UPL Limited appealed a decision by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs which refused to proceed with its patent application (No. 1378/KOL/2013). The appellant argued that the rejection was based on procedural flaws, specifically the failure to address expert affidavits and critical technical submissions. The Court set aside the impugned order based on admissions made by the authorities in their affidavit in opposition.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa & Anr. v.Hetero Healthcare Limited
Helsinn Healthcare filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Hetero Healthcare Limited for infringing their patent (No. 426553) related to a combination treatment for nausea and vomiting induced by chemotherapy. The court, after considering the promotional material of 'NETUPIN', found that the defendant's product was an integrated combination of the patented compounds, thus making a prima facie case for infringement.
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
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.