IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 111 of 159 · 4,764 total
Powerhouse Licensing LLC. v.Anand Rai
Powerhouse Licensing LLC successfully secured an interim injunction in the Bombay High Court against Respondent No. 1 regarding a conflicting trademark registration for 'POWERHOUSE GYM'. The court found that the Petitioner holds prior, famous, and well-known rights to the mark, making the impugned registration prima facie liable to be cancelled or rectified. This initial victory allows the Petitioners to prevent any misuse of their brand while the full legal proceedings continue.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills (India) Ltd v.M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark infringement suit filed by Shree Ganesh Rolling Mills against M/S Jindal Rolling Mill Ltd. The case, which involved allegations of passing off regarding the 'JINDAL' mark, was resolved through mediation and a subsequent settlement agreement. The court upheld the compromise decree, ensuring that while the parties remain bound by the terms, the specific details of the confidential settlement will not be disclosed in the public record.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications filed by Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH (as defendants in the main infringement action) requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce, given the complexity of US recognition procedures for foreign judgments. The applications sought security of EUR 200,000 each, or alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond to the claim.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 552 399 B1 filed applications requesting that the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), provide security for legal costs pursuant to Art. 69.4 UPCA and rule 158 RoP. The applicants argued that NST, a US company with its administrative domicile outside the EU, posed a real risk that any cost reimbursement order would be difficult or impossible to enforce. The applications sought EUR 200,000 each in security, alternatively an amount to be determined by the Court, along with a stay of proceedings or extension of the deadline to respond.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 697 391 B1 in the context of an application for provisional measures. The court addressed the language of proceedings after the Court of Appeal changed the language from German to English just two weeks before the final order was due. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the final order may be issued in German with a certified English translation to avoid unnecessary delay.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
This order concerns three applications by the defendants in a patent infringement action (Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) requesting security for legal costs against the plaintiff, Network System Technologies LLC (NST), a US company. The applicants sought security of EUR 200,000 each under Art. 69.4 UPCA and Rule 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any cost order against NST in the United States would be difficult, lengthy, and expensive due to the state-by-state exequatur requirements. The applications were filed in connection with the main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399 B1 relating to integrated circuits and methods for establishing transactions.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied Toyota and Kia's request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026. The denial leaves the earlier institution denial in place.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia’s attempt to obtain Director review of an IPR against Emerging Automotive was rejected. The Board held the request unauthorized under 37 C.F.R. §42.75(c) and affirmed its earlier denial of institution. The brief also urges denial of other pending IPRs between the parties.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota Motor Corp. filed a Director Review request in IPR2024-00785 concerning patent 10,407,026; the patent owner may respond within five business days.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging the validity of Dermavant Sciences GmbH's patent (US 11590088) in the context of psoriasis treatment. The petitioner asserts that the claimed methods are anticipated or obvious based on prior art references like Sonti and Bissonnette.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia filed an IPR petition against Emerging Automotive LLC regarding its vehicle access control systems patent (10407026). The petitioners argue that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art, primarily Zaid.
Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dermavant Sciences GmbH et al.
Encube Ethicals successfully challenged Dermavant Sciences' patent claims in the PTAB, leading to institution of the case. The Board found sufficient grounds for anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), specifically regarding psoriasis treatment methods. This decision significantly strengthens Encube's position by validating their prior art arguments against the '088 patent.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenge against Emerging Automotive LLC's vehicle access control patents. The Board found that the petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Britannia Industries Ltd v.ITC Ltd
This case involves a dispute over the validity of a registered design used on 'Good Day' Biscuits labels. The defendant, ITC Ltd, sought summary judgment arguing that the design was not registrable under Section 19(1)(d) and Section 4(b) of the Designs Act, citing prior public disclosure. Britannia Industries Ltd countered this by seeking to place additional documents on record, which they claimed would correct an error in their user claim date. The court adjourned the matter to determine the admissibility of these crucial documents.
Optimedica Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Optimedica Corporation appealed a rejection order dated 12.09.2012 issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that the subject matter did not constitute an invention under Section 2(1)(j) of The Patents Act, 1970. The High Court allowed the appeal to proceed by remitting the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration of the amended claims.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd v.Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court disposed of the trademark dispute between Shree Shyam Snacks Food Pvt Ltd and Bikanervala Foods Pvt Ltd following a comprehensive settlement. The defendant agreed to exhaust all existing stock bearing the disputed mark 'SHYAMJI' by September 30, 2024, while simultaneously withdrawing opposition and registration applications related to that mark. Crucially, the plaintiff consented not to oppose the defendant's adoption of the new trademark, 'SHYAM RASS', effectively resolving the conflict amicably.
Punam Flutes v.Mahesh Chand Gupta And Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Punam Flutes' petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration ('PUNAM'). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior and well-established mark, 'PUNAM FLUTES,' used for musical instruments. Given the strong potential for consumer confusion and the Petitioner's established market reputation, the Court ruled that the Respondent's registration could not sustain under Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act.
The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v.M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by The Polo/Lauren Company L.P seeking to remove an alleged infringing trademark, 'CLUB LINE BY CLASSIC POLO,' registered under No. 1236106 in Class 25. However, the court noted that the first respondent (M/s Royal Classic Mills Private Limited) had already filed a formal application (TM-P dated 22.04.2024) to cancel this specific trademark registration. Consequently, the High Court closed the petition, confirming that the objective of the petitioner was achieved through the action taken by the respondent.
Mayfair Lighting Llp v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Mayfair Lighting Llp, overturning an earlier decision that had deemed their trademark opposition abandoned. The court found that the original timeline for filing evidence was flawed due to issues with service of the counter-statement by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Consequently, the registration of the mark 'LONDON MAY FAIR' in favor of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled, and the opposition proceedings were restored.
Cosmetic Warriors Limited v.Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The Madras High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Cosmetic Warriors Limited against Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd regarding the trademark 'BIOMIC SCIENCE'. The court accepted the argument that despite registering the mark in 2012, the first respondent had failed to put it to substantial use in commerce. Consequently, the registration entry was rectified and removed.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH, expert e-Commerce GmbH
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf addresses whether Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., a simple licensee and parent company of the patent holder Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., may intervene in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The court held that a simple licensee has a legal interest in intervening because a successful revocation counterclaim would retroactively nullify the patent, stripping the licensee of its preferential position over non-licensees. Since the Local Chamber decided to hear both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim together, the licensee was permitted to intervene in the entire dispute, not just in the revocation counterclaim.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Zepp Health and Slyde Analytics filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after reaching a settlement, which the Board approved and treated the settlement as confidential business information.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 11,194,039, and they have jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR.
Zepp Health Corporation v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
The PTAB issued an order terminating the IPR against Garmin after a settlement was reached, and allowed the settlement agreement to be filed as business‑confidential information. The proceeding remains open for other parties.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly moved to terminate two inter partes review proceedings after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the termination, citing good cause and public policy favoring settlement.
Applied Concepts Inc. v.Kustom Signals Inc.
Applied Concepts and Kustom Signals jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record, invoking statutory confidentiality provisions.
Garmin Ltd. et al. v.Slyde Analytics, LLC
Samsung and Slyde Analytics settled their IPR dispute over a wearable‑technology patent, leading the Board to terminate Samsung from the proceeding and grant confidentiality to the settlement agreement.
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.