IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 110 of 159 · 4,764 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This case concerns an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three Netgear entities regarding European Patent EP 3 611 989, which Huawei asserts is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard. The defendants raised an exhaustion defense, contending that some accused embodiments incorporate Qualcomm chips and that Huawei's August 2020 license agreement with Qualcomm covers its Wi-Fi 6 standard patents. The defendants applied for an order requiring Huawei to produce the Qualcomm license agreement, along with coercive penalties for non-compliance, while Huawei opposed production citing US court restrictions and alternatively sought confidentiality protections.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA against European Patent EP 3 876 690, owned by Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG, before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of its appeal against the rejection of a Preliminary Objection and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Plaintiff opposed the stay, arguing the appeal was unlikely to succeed and that the request was a delay tactic. The Court set new dates for the interim conference (19 July 2024) and oral hearing (25 September 2024).
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s 11,707,033 corn plant patent, arguing it is an obvious copy of earlier varieties. The petition seeks Director review to correct the Board’s alleged legal error.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request to review the PTAB's denial of institution for Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed‑technology patent, leaving the denial in place.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging 20 claims of Pioneer’s corn‑variety patent, arguing obviousness, lack of utility, and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution of the review and raises novel legal questions about plant‑utility claim drafting.
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
RJ Machine Company has filed an opening petition challenging Schneider’s connector apparatus patent (9851030). The petitioner argues that the claimed union nut connectors are conventional and obvious, citing prior art from the oil and gas industry. This challenge targets multiple grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103.
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. v.3Shape A/S
Dental Imaging Technologies Corporation et al. filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,695,151 held by 3Shape A/S. The petitioner asserts that the patent claims related to dental shade determination are unpatentable under both anticipation (§102) and obviousness (§103).
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,396,244 in an IPR proceeding against Emerging Automotive LLC, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition argues that combinations of prior art references (Rector, Kleve, Yassin) disclose the claimed cloud services for vehicle customization and security features.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.
RJ Machine v.Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by RJ Machine Company against Armaturenfabrik Franz Schneider GMBH + Co. KG. The denial was based on the Petitioner's failure to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), particularly concerning the means-plus-function claim construction of 'sealing means.'
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp.'s IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC was instituted by the PTAB, allowing the challenge of numerous claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed with challenging key features related to vehicle profile management and cloud services.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that nearly all asserted claims (1, 2, and 4-20) were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board adopted the Petitioner's arguments regarding obviousness, specifically finding that combining Rector with Kleve taught or suggested limitations for Claim 1.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed an order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected a post-grant opposition against Patent no. IN 319780. The appellant argued that since the respondent failed to comply with previous court remands, the High Court should rule on the merits of the case.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision that dismissed his opposition against a trademark application. The Delhi High Court accepted the appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to the respondents, who have been granted six weeks to file their reply and subsequent rejoinder.
Zydus Healthcare Limited v.Flipkart Internet Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed concerns raised by Zydus Healthcare regarding counterfeit goods sold on Flipkart. While acknowledging that e-commerce platforms have mechanisms in place, the court highlighted critical procedural flaws, particularly concerning seller onboarding, GST misuse, and product identification (FSN). The judgment mandates Flipkart to investigate these issues, provide specific documentation like bank details, and implement technical solutions to prevent genuine sellers from being unfairly de-listed.
Bic Cello India Private Limited v.Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain
Bic Cello India Private Limited initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the invalidation of a trademark registration held by Ramanlal Rughnathmalji Jain, specifically concerning the mark 'TRIMORE'. The court accepted the plaintiff's application and issued notice to the defendant. This marks the initial procedural step in challenging the validity of the registered trademark.
Belle Wears Private Limited v.Hobby Garments Private Limited
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in the trademark infringement and passing off case filed by Belle Wears Private Limited against Hobby Garments Private Limited. The court formally registered the suit and directed the issuance of summons to the defendant. Crucially, the plaintiff was also granted an interim order allowing notice to be served on the defendant regarding the alleged infringement of the 'TEENAGER' trademark and artistic work, setting the stage for further litigation.
Thukral Mechanical Works v.Pm Diesels Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court, in a series of connected appeals, addressed challenges to an earlier finding regarding trademark non-use. While some applications were disposed of with exemptions allowed, the court granted a stay on the main impugned judgment. This decision highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny over trademark cancellation proceedings, particularly when conflicting interpretations of Supreme Court precedents arise.
Nicoventures Trading Limited v.NJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.
1 ORDER of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 24. April 2024 concerning EP 3430921 KEYWORDS: Rule 262 RoP request REFERENCE CODE ECLI: not provided APPLICANT Nicoventures Trading Limited, Globe House, 1 Water S
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
Elmos Semiconductor SE challenged Texas Instruments' LED driver patent (11653432) in the PTAB, alleging obviousness and anticipation. The petitioner relies on a combination of multiple prior art references to invalidate claims 1-20 related to power management ICs.
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE v.Texas Instruments Incorporated
ELMOS SEMICONDUCTOR SE's IPR challenge against Texas Instruments Incorporated was denied by the PTAB, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that ELMOS lacked adequate motivation and particularity in its obviousness arguments across multiple grounds.
Novartis Ag v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of Indian Patent No. 229051, while the Defendant challenged the validity of the patent. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and sought a consent decree.
SRF LIMITED v.SOLVAY S A & ANR.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Respondent No.1, including an application seeking leave to amend the claims of Patent IN 331314 and a request for condonation of delay. The Court allowed the condonation of delay and granted exemptions sought by the respondent.
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited v.Jindal Steel And Power Limited
Wieden+Kennedy India Private Limited approached the Delhi High Court seeking interim protection against Jindal Steel And Power Limited regarding an ad film campaign titled 'Steel of India'. The petitioner claimed authorship and copyright over the creative works, arguing that the respondent terminated the contract without fulfilling payment obligations. The court addressed the dispute under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, while acknowledging the IP nature of the claim. The judgment mandated a deposit of Rs. 59 lakhs by the respondent and granted an interim injunction against distribution if the deposit was not made within two weeks.
Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited v.Canva Pty Ltd
The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the defendant was non-compliant with a prior court order by promoting or advertising the 'Present and Record' feature on its global website, potentially inviting Indian users to circumvent restrictions using VPNs. The Court found that while the feature is not available for download in India (which constitutes compliance), the defendant must take steps to ensure customer care does not suggest or exhort users to use VPNs to access the feature.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Novartis Ag And Anr.
Novartis filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN 233161) concerning Eltrombopag bis (monoethanolamine) (ELT-O), leading to an interim injunction against Natco. Natco appealed this order, challenging the validity of IN 233161 on grounds including prior claiming and lack of inventive step under Section 3(d).
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
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.