IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 118 of 159 · 4,764 total
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Integrated DNA Technologies successfully challenged the '108 patent's claims in a PTAB institution decision, finding reasonable likelihood of prevailing on anticipation for Claim 1. The Board affirmed that prior art disclosure was sufficient to support the enrichment limitation using Meyer et al.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB has issued an Institution Decision for IPR2025-00007, finding that the Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim. The case involves obviousness challenges (103) against Trina Solar's solar cell patent using combinations of prior art from Jin, Feldmann, Chang, Seo, and Watabe.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition against claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, finding that the combination of prior art references did not render the copper foil obvious. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success when combining properties from materially different sources.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v.SK nexilis Co., Ltd.
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied by the PTAB, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis's copper foil patent.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB issued a final written decision rejecting all grounds of unpatentability asserted by the Petitioner regarding NGS target enrichment claims. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow definition of 'enrichment,' finding that the prior art failed to teach the claimed proportional increase in target fragments.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB upheld the patent against IPR challenges related to NGS target enrichment. The Board clarified that 'enrichment' requires an increased proportion of the sequence relative to others, not just a raw increase in fragment count. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof on unpatentability.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 11 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over combinations of prior art, specifically involving Chang and Jin for isolation regions in solar cells.
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201717045317 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the refusal erroneously applied the test of inventive step, failing to recognize the technical advancement and substantial differences in the claimed invention compared to prior art.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited appealed against an order dismissing its writ petition, which challenged the post-grant opposition proceedings against its patent IN387429. The dispute centered on whether the original Opposition Board had adequately considered expert evidence before submitting its recommendation to revoke the patent.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Shamrock Mobile GmbH v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal clarifies the date of service of the appeal documents in proceedings between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and several Xiaomi entities regarding EP 3 611 989. Xiaomi requested confirmation that service of the appeal occurred on April 3, 2024, with the response deadline expiring on April 18, 2024, or alternatively an extension of the response deadline. The order addresses the application of Rules 270 to 279 of the Rules of Procedure regarding service in appeal proceedings.
Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, issued in proceedings for provisional measures. The applicant Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sought interim relief against the respondents Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH. The order sets out key legal principles regarding patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC, the timing of filing provisional measure requests, the treatment of late submissions, cost decisions in interim proceedings, and the requirement for security in case of revocation of provisional measures.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics' IPR challenge against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB, despite arguments regarding prior art and claim scope. The Board based its decision on a holistic application of Fintiv factors, finding that the likelihood of trial before the statutory deadline outweighed other considerations.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
Novartis AG filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited seeking permanent injunction against the exploitation of its patent (IN 276026) covering Ceritinib. The dispute centered on whether the patent was invalid due to prior art and obviousness, which Natco argued. The court dismissed Natco's application to vacate the existing interim injunction.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argues that this section is contrary to Section 11A(7) because it restricts patent subsistence based on the date of application rather than the date of publication. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and res judicata before adjourning the matter for arguments on merits.
Honasa Consumer Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Honasa Consumer Limited's appeal against the refusal to register its trademark 'THE DERMA CO'. The initial rejection was based on similarity and likelihood of confusion with an earlier cited mark. However, by providing a disclaimer that they only claim rights over the composite mark and not the word 'DERMA', the court accepted the application. This decision highlights how strategic disclaimers can overcome objections in trademark registration proceedings.
Adret Retail Private Limited v.Abhinandan Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a detailed order in the ongoing suit concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off by defendants using the 'KAPIVA' family of marks. The court granted an interim injunction application (I.A. 8103/2024) by directing the execution of local commissioners' commissions at the defendants' premises. This action is crucial for the plaintiff, Adret Retail Private Limited, to gather evidence regarding the alleged counterfeit products and unauthorized use of their registered trademarks in the market.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Mankind Pharma Limited and Solitaire Pharmacia And Anr. The court directed the Respondent to file additional documents demonstrating that the Petitioner was simultaneously seeking rectification of the impugned trademark 'CUREKIND' before the Trademark Registry. Furthermore, the hearing was adjourned to September 2nd, 2024, allowing both parties time to submit composite briefs.
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.