IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 119 of 159 · 4,764 total
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. against Vishwaratna Hotel Pvt Ltd. The court found that the plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark 'FAIRMONT', had made out a prima facie case for infringement. This order specifically restrains the defendant from using 'FAIRMONT' or any deceptively similar mark in connection with their hotel properties, including the disputed 'OCTAVE FAIRMONT SUITES'. The ruling underscores the immediate protection available to brand owners against unauthorized use of their trademarks.
Mittal Electronic Industries v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.
AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (PMA) to access an expert report generated following ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders against AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.a. The inspection orders, granted in September 2023 in connection with alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2726230, were executed in October 2023, but the resulting expert reports were kept in sealed envelopes. PMA sought access to the reports to evaluate whether to commence proceedings on the merits, arguing that confidentiality obligations prevented its representatives from disclosing the findings.
Meril Italy S.r.l., Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a Rule 9.3 RoP extension request in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 669 828. The defendants requested a three-week extension of the deadline to file their Statement of Defence, citing the recent change of language of proceedings from German to English. The court rejected the extension request, finding that the defendants failed to substantiate why the one-month period between the language change and the filing deadline was insufficient.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders And Anr
Mohd Shakir filed a petition seeking rectification of an artistic work titled 'MYA', which was registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner claimed that the impugned registration belonging to Gopal Traders copied an earlier artwork owned by a third party in Lebanon and had prior international trademark registrations for 'MYA'. However, the court dismissed the petition, noting that copyright registration is only prima facie evidence of particulars entered therein. Furthermore, the court highlighted the petitioner's own conflicting assertions regarding ownership in previous opposition proceedings, ultimately upholding the validity of the existing registration.
Astra Zeneca Ab v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case involves a dispute regarding the validity of Indian Patent No. 235625, which was held to be prima facie invalid by co-ordinate benches of the court.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v.Prime Diamond Tech & Ors.
Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd challenged a trial court order that allowed its former employees, who formed Prime Diamond Tech, to continue their business activities despite allegations of copyright infringement. The appellant claimed that the respondents were using proprietary drawings and confidential information related to High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) machines for diamond coloring. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim of a proprietary right is purely a question of fact requiring expert evidence during trial, and thus, no prima facie case warranted an injunction.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The court addressed arguments concerning the maintainability of a writ petition related to the deletion of an amendment in five patent claims. The court noted similar pending decisions on this issue and allowed the interlocutory application (I.A.) to proceed, considering the counter claim filed by the defendant.
Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. v.Abdul Rehman & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an injunction application in a trademark infringement suit brought by Frhi Hotels & Resorts S.A R.L. The court accepted the Plaintiff's claim regarding the established goodwill associated with 'FAIRMONT' and 'THE FAIRMONT'. Crucially, Defendant No. 1 agreed to cease using the infringing device mark and domain name 'www.fairmontin.in', leading the Court to grant a temporary injunction and a four-week period for implementation of the changes. The court also extended these directions to Defendants No. 2 and 3.
Castrol Limited v.Vikas Mishra
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited against Vikas Mishra regarding alleged trademark and trade dress infringement. The court found a prima facie case based on the similarity between Castrol's established global brand and the defendant's use of marks like 'ACTIVE', 'ACFIVE', and 'POWER'. This initial order restrains the defendant from using confusingly similar branding while mandating the disclosure of sales accounts, setting the stage for further litigation.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical And Food Product And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd against D N Bahri Trading As The Veldon Chemical, ordering the removal of the respondent's registered mark under Class 32. The petitioner successfully argued that the impugned trademark was either not used continuously for the required period or constituted an infringement/passing off risk given the established reputation and extensive use of the 'AMUL' brand. This judgment reinforces the protection afforded to well-known marks against unauthorized registrations.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition contends the Board misapplied Fintiv factors, ignoring prior art and POSITA testimony.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia jointly moved to terminate an IPR over Active Wireless's 5G PUCCH patent after reaching settlement agreements with the patent owner. The Board was asked to end the proceeding because the merits had not yet been decided and public policy favors settlement.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision, arguing the Board misapplied obviousness law on two grounds involving Kurashina/Sato and Murade‑109/Murade‑125 references. The petitioner contends that universal motivations and known techniques provide sufficient motivation to combine the references.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia, together with patent owner Active Wireless Technologies, filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements kept confidential under statutory provisions, seeking to separate the materials from the public PTAB file.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia settled with Active Wireless Technologies, leading the PTAB to terminate three inter partes review proceedings. The settlement agreements were also deemed business‑confidential.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
The USPTO denied BOE Technology’s request for a Director Review of the institution denial of its challenge to U.S. Patent 7,502,079, keeping the original denial in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, have challenged ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent claims regarding 5G QoS flow management. The petition asserts that the claimed inventions are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining various prior art references. This challenge targets core technical aspects of wireless communication protocols.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,502,079 regarding Active-Matrix Liquid Crystal Displays (AMLCD). The petitioner asserts that all three claimed elements are obvious over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This filing initiates a formal PTAB proceeding against the patent owner.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied an IPR petition filed by a consortium of wireless carriers against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., citing unfavorable findings under the Fintiv discretionary denial standard. The Board found that despite some neutral factors, Petitioner's substantial delay and lack of compelling merits weighed against proceeding with the case.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned against Active Wireless Technologies' patent (10785764) in a PTAB decision, leading to institution. The Board found a likelihood of prevailing on the Shin obviousness ground over NB-IoT/LTE multicast services claims.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
Ericsson and Nokia successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Active Wireless Technologies LLC regarding 5G NR PUCCH design claims. The Board found compelling evidence of unpatentability, despite initial concerns raised by the Patent Owner's arguments.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against the LCD display patent was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient rationale for combining prior art references. The Board determined the obviousness arguments were conclusory and lacked objective support.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur in a revocation action concerning European patent No. EP 3 414 708. The order addressed three procedural issues: the validity of the patent's priority claim, the allowable form of amendments, and late-filed attacks on validity. The judge-rapporteur ruled that the priority claim validity issue should remain part of the proceedings, deferred amendment-related issues to the oral hearing, excluded novelty attacks based on MB5 and MB6, but admitted sufficiency attacks targeting the amended version of the patent.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
This order concerns a revocation action brought by BITZER Electronics A/S against European patent EP 3 414 708 held by Carrier Corporation. The judge-rapporteur addressed procedural and substantive issues arising from the interim conference, including the validity of the priority claim, the admissibility of certain patent amendments, and late-filed attacks on novelty and sufficiency. The ruling permitted the priority challenge to proceed, excluded late-filed novelty attacks based on documents MB5 and MB6, allowed sufficiency attacks targeting the amended patent, and deferred questions regarding the admissibility of certain amendments and the twelfth auxiliary request to the oral hearing.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit alleging infringement of its Patent No. 271425 against Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation. Concurrently, the defendants filed a counter claim seeking the revocation of this patent. The Gujarat High Court examined both the infringement claims and the validity challenges raised by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement, and consequently, rejected the counter claim for revocation, affirming the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The dispute involves President and Fellows of Harvard College challenging the rejection of their patent application for 'non-native' pancreatic beta cells used in diabetes treatment. The Controller General objected primarily on grounds related to Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that any cell product originates from an animal source. The court directed both parties to file a brief note clarifying the patentability of these 'non-native' cells and reviewing relevant precedents before proceeding with other objections.
Sulzer Mixpac Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sulzer Mixpac Ag appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'STATIC MIXER' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and inventive step in view of cited prior art documents (D1-D4). The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Patent Office's objections.
Eris Lifesciences Limited v.Controller Of Patents & Anr.
This order addresses two concurrent proceedings concerning Patent IN 243301, which had expired on August 18, 2023. The erstwhile patentee argued the petitions were infructuous due to expiry. Petitioners contended that validity must still be decided as they faced ongoing infringement actions where invalidity was raised as a defense.
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
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.