IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 108 of 159 · 4,764 total
Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Corona Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed a trademark infringement suit filed by Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals against Corona Remedies concerning the marks STIMULIV and STIMULET. The core dispute involved the validity of the Defendant's trademark registration, which the Plaintiff challenged. Satisfied that the plea regarding invalidity was prima facie tenable, the court framed an issue on this matter and adjourned the suit for further proceedings.
Green Gold Animation Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Green Gold Animation Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the abandonment of opposition proceedings related to the 'MIGHTY RAJU' device mark. The High Court was asked to restore the opposition and allow the applicant to file a counter statement. However, the appellant subsequently conveyed instructions that they did not wish to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
Marico Limited v.Bayer AG
The Madras High Court disposed of the trademark cancellation petition filed by Marico Limited against Bayer AG. The court noted that despite delays in execution due to one signatory being in Germany, the parties had reached a full settlement regarding the trademark No. 1296206. Consequently, the original petition was closed, and both parties were directed to file a formal memo of settlement with the Registry.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
M/s Munjal Showa Limited v.M/s Star India Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a batch of petitions concerning the rectification and removal of several trademarks, including 'MANJAL.' The court accepted the first respondent's affidavit stating that some trademarks had expired and others were not being put to use despite renewal. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, directing the first respondent to initiate necessary cancellation applications before the Trade Marks Registry within a specified timeframe.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the procedural language from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The court approved the request and ordered that the proceedings be conducted in English from the date of the order.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB denied Micron's petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving Yangtze Memory's patent 11,468,957. The Board’s original findings remain in effect.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s final written decision that held claims 1‑6 of its 3D‑NAND memory patent unpatentable. The petition argues the Board relied on unsupported expert testimony and misapplied the non‑obviousness analysis to prior art references Hongtao and Seo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron’s request for Director Review challenges the PTAB’s rejection of its obviousness arguments against Yangtze Memory’s NAND flash verification patent. The Board found Micron’s evidence insufficient and its arguments conclusory, leading to a denial of the review request.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
Trove Brands has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,905,252 held by Camelbak Products, LLC, concerning drink container cap assemblies. The petition asserts multiple grounds of unpatentability, primarily relying on anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). Trove Brands utilizes various prior art references, including Samartgis, Leoncavallo, Miller, Gorskey, and Johnson.
Trove Brands, LLC et al. v.Vista Outdoor Operations LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Trove Brands against CamelBak's patent 8905252, finding that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability over Samartgis and Leoncavallo.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent claims related to 3D-NAND memory operation, leading to the institution of the IPR. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron would prevail on its challenges regarding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics' IPR challenge against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments of anticipation and obviousness, particularly regarding claim scope limitations like 'article of footwear.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's arguments that claims 1-6 of patent 11468957 were unpatentable. The Board found the anticipation argument failed because Suzuki did not disclose a distinct 'pre-verify stage,' and obviousness arguments failed due to insufficient establishment of required elements over prior art combinations.
Sebile Educations Private Limited v.Nikita Dubey Rai
Sebile Educations Private Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions against Nikita Dubey Rai and others for infringing its registered trademark, 'LITTLE EINSTEINS', and violating copyright laws. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were using the deceptively similar mark 'LEARNING EINSTEINS' in educational services. However, despite previous court directions to file proof affidavits and documents before the Master, the plaintiff failed to comply with the order. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the suit for default.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd v.Parijat Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd
The case involves a patent infringement dispute regarding two products, 'Xyfen' and 'Xyfen Ultra', which are alleged to infringe Indian Patent No. 394568. The Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the Defendant's products.
Torrent Pharma Limited v.Controller General Of Patents
Torrent Pharma Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design which rejected its Patent Application No. 10885/DELNP/2015 for a product treating IBS. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court adjourned the matter.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. filed an appeal challenging the Deputy Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 495/DEL/2013). The rejection was based on Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1999. The court issued directions for notice and filing of replies.
Janssen Sciences Ireland Uc v.Controller Of Patents
Janssen Sciences Ireland appealed the Deputy Controller's refusal of its Indian Patent Application for 'LONG TERM TREATMENT OF HIV-INFECTION WITH TMC278'. The refusal was based on lack of inventive step. The Court noted an inconsistency between the formulation claim and method claims in the application, allowing the Appellant to file a fresh, amended application.
M/s.Aariza Electricals v.M/s.Vijay Pipes Industries
The Madras High Court overturned a lower court's decision that barred the defendant from filing their written statement in a trademark dispute. The court clarified that when a suit is converted into a 'transferred suit' under the Commercial Courts Act, the strict 120-day limit for filing a defense does not apply. By allowing the defendants to file their response, the High Court ensured justice and allowed the commercial suit to proceed.
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
AIM Sport Development AG appealed a decision of the Local Division Helsinki that dismissed both its infringement action and its application for provisional measures concerning European patent EP 3 295 663, on the ground that the court lacked competence due to an opt-out. The central issue on appeal was whether the two-month appeal period under R.220.1(a) RoP or the fifteen-day period under R.220.1(c) RoP applied. The Court of Appeal held the appeal admissible, finding that the ambiguity in the rules and the incorrect information provided by the Court of First Instance justified applying the longer two-month period, while extending the respondent's time to respond to three months.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
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.