IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 159 · 4,762 total
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed against an order passed by The Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent for its innovation, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on prior art documents without proper reasoning or consideration of their contentions. The Madras High Court quashed the impugned order due to non-application of mind and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
Societe Des Produits Nestle S A v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Nestle appealed a trademark refusal order from the Trademark Registry to the Delhi High Court. The original rejection was based on the mark being non-distinctive and similar to existing registered marks. Due to procedural issues following the dissolution of the IPAB, Nestle had to file a fresh appeal in the High Court. The court accepted notice and scheduled further proceedings.
air up group GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application concerning the service of a request for preliminary measures (interim injunction) to a Chinese-domiciled defendant in proceedings related to EP 3 655 341. After formal service under the Hague Service Convention failed due to the Chinese authority's non-processing for over six months, and alternative methods of service were neither factually nor legally possible, the court held that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP. Service was deemed effective as of the date of the order, with the defendant given fourteen days to file an objection.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1 (relating to the 1000Base-T1 Automotive Ethernet Standard, in force only in Germany), sought provisional measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation. The dispute arose after Realtek filed a lawsuit against Avago in the Court of Chancery of Delaware (USA), which was referred to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking what Avago characterized as foreign anti-suit and/or anti-enforcement relief. The Local Division Munich ruled on the court's jurisdiction to grant interim relief against such foreign measures, holding that foreign anti-suit and enforcement injunctions violate the European right to effective judicial protection (Art. 47 EU Charter) and the German constitutional guarantee of access to courts.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice concerning its Indian Patent Application (No. 202017037539). The petitioner argued that they never received the communication regarding the First Examination Report (FER) due to coordination issues between patent agents in Canada and India. The Court found that since the deadline was missed due to non-receipt of the FER, it set aside the abandonment order and revived the application.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
Hatsun Agro Product Limited v.V.Shanmugam And S.Murugesan (Trading as Arokiya Foods)
Hatsun Agro Product Limited sought the cancellation of a registered trademark ('AROKIYA') held by V.Shanmugam and S.Murugesan, alleging non-usage for over five years under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent's minor alteration to the mark (removing a device mark) did not constitute a substantial change affecting its identity. Furthermore, the court found no merit in the petitioner's claim regarding non-usage.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the IPR against Headwater Research's patent 10,749,700. The motion relies on statutory confidentiality provisions.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola Mobility settled their IPR challenge to Headwater Research’s patent 10,749,700, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s ’184 patent on differential traffic control was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the claimed blocking of Internet service requests, so no reasonable likelihood of unpatentability was shown.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola jointly moved with Headwater Research to terminate IPR 2024‑01181 after settling the dispute over Patent 10,749,700, including related district‑court litigation.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging the validity of Inari Medical's '691 patent covering intravascular aspiration systems used for thrombectomy. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by combining various prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display challenges a patent related to OLED encapsulation claims based on obviousness (103). The petitioner asserts that combining known prior art references—such as Kijima and Suzuki—renders the claimed methods obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition targets 11 specific claims across four grounds.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and others have filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,749,700 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The petitioners argue that the claimed network scheduling and application prioritization features are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Rao and Scahill.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,198,076, arguing that its claims related to power management and network prioritization are obvious. The petitioners assert that combining prior art references like Rao and Araujo with others provides predictable improvements in device functionality and battery longevity.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against Inari Medical's patent (11744691) covering emboli treatment systems. The Board found that the petitioner, Imperative Care, Inc., failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Lenovo and Motorola successfully instituted an IPR against Headwater Research, challenging the obviousness of claims related to network capacity management over prior art references. The Board found sufficient evidence that combining Rao and Scahill would render at least claim 1 unpatentable as obvious under § 103.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an inter partes review petition challenging U.S. Patent 7,586,121. The petition relies on the Anzai and Yamazaki OLED display patents to argue anticipation and obviousness of the 121 patent’s claims. A declaration by expert Dean Neikirk supports the statutory grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes in the ITC investigation of OLED display modules, prompting a joint motion to terminate the case. The parties argue that termination aligns with public interest and statutory authority.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites settlement and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology and Optronic Sciences have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR disputes, leading to withdrawal of Director Review requests for three proceedings.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that BOE is the sole real party in interest and that the patent owner's RPI arguments are untimely and unsupported.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences LLC’s request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01132. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and applied the new Director’s Memorandum, leaving the institution in place.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Optronic Sciences LLC
BOE Technology Group and Optronic Sciences settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,226,801 B2. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion, citing good cause and confidentiality considerations.
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.