IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 120 of 159 · 4,764 total
Varun Chohpra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a new suit filed by Varun Chohpra & Anr. against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf, which alleged trademark infringement concerning the 'NATRAJ' brand. The court noted that a similar matter was already pending in Bangalore. Before proceeding with summons, the court directed steps to ascertain the maintainability of the current suit due to the new cause of action. Consequently, notice was issued to the defendants for a returnable hearing.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed an appeal challenging the order that his patent application was deemed abandoned due to a four-day delay in responding to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to a clerical error. The High Court found the reasons acceptable, noting the minimal delay and the Controller's failure to properly address the Rule 137 application.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns a request by FUJIFILM Corporation to extend the time period for filing its reply to the defendants' Statement of defence, Counterclaims for revocation, and application to amend European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The defendants had filed confidential information related to alleged private prior use and business figures, and access was initially restricted to the claimant's representatives. The court granted the extension until 28 May 2024, finding that the delayed and restricted access to confidential information constituted an exceptional case justifying the extension.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS, LLC and BlephEx, LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petition and terminate the proceeding.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of Autel's IPR against Orange Electronic's TPMS patent, finding the petition presented no new prior art or arguments beyond those already considered in a prior reexamination.
NULIDS, LLC v.BlephEx, LLC
NULIDS challenges BlephEx's patent (11083621) in an IPR petition, arguing that the device for ocular disorder treatment is obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references including Grenon I, Grenon II, Nichamin, Colin, and Shabo to invalidate claims 1-6, 9-18.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
CUB Elecparts Inc. initiated an IPR challenging key claims of the '064 patent related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems (TPMS). The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious in view of prior art references, primarily Tang and Lemense, which describe similar ID updating systems.
CUB Elecparts Inc. v.Orange Electronic Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its grounds of obviousness (103). The challenge targeted multiple claims related to Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems using various prior art combinations.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves disputes between two pharmaceutical companies regarding the artistic work and copyright protection of 'ENERZY' powder. The core legal challenge revolved around whether the plaintiff's suit, which sought injunctions against infringement, should be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC because its valuation was tied to a prior agreement. The High Court examined the distinction between statutory rights (Copyright Act) and contractual obligations, ultimately modifying the trial court's order to allow the suit to proceed without mandating the inclusion of all specific pleadings from the external agreement.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Jai Rajendra Impex Private Limited's appeal, setting aside the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its 'BONUS' trademark application. The court accepted the appellant's plea of honest and concurrent use under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, despite a phonetic conflict with an existing mark ('BONUSS'). The judgment emphasized that prior usage, even in different classes, can establish bona fides, allowing for registration.
Mona Aggarwal v.Sandhya Gupta
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Mona Aggarwal against the trademark 'Super MULTI PLUS' used by Sandhya Gupta. Mona Aggarwal argues that since her prior passing-off suit established her as the prior user, and Sandhya Gupta failed to provide documentary evidence of use since 1994, the registration should be cancelled as fraudulent. The court has noted these arguments but deferred a final decision, setting a date for further hearing.
Kamlesh Kumar Mehta v.Union Of India; Gini Silk Mills Limited
The Rajasthan High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Kamlesh Kumar Mehta seeking the expeditious disposal of his long-pending trademark registration application for 'GILI' in Class 24. After considering the petitioner's request, the court issued an order directing the Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 1) to decide Application No. 1779181 within a strict period of eight weeks from receiving the certified copy of the judgment.
Rajesh Jain v.Amit Jain & Another
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal challenging the refusal to grant discovery of documents. The suit involves trademark infringement and passing off, where defendants raised a defense of distinctiveness. The court ruled that since the sought-after documents were primarily intended to rebut an earlier application (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC) which was decided nearly ten years prior, they lacked relevance at the current stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the plaintiff must rely on other evidence to prove their case.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 838 002, with Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited as the plaintiff alleging patent infringement against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation of the patent. The court addressed the procedural question under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court regarding whether the infringement action and revocation counterclaims should be heard together or separated. Both parties agreed that the action and counterclaims should be heard together before the same panel, and the court ordered that they be jointly heard before the Local Chamber Munich.
Juul Labs, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This appeal concerned five revocation actions brought by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against Juul Labs International, Inc. before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court, relating to five European patents. The statements for revocation incorrectly named the defendant as 'Juul Labs, Inc.' rather than 'Juul Labs International, Inc.' The Court of Appeal addressed whether the claimant could rectify this naming error and considered the issue of costs under Rule 242.1 RoP. The Court held that rectification could be granted where it was clear from the circumstances that the claimant intended the action against the defendant, and that no order for costs would be issued at the appeal stage since the decision was not a final order concluding the action.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation , Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement dispute involving standard-essential patents (SEPs) for 3G and 4G standards. The plaintiff (Panasonic) alleges infringement of its patent, while the defendants (including OPPO) counter that Panasonic's licensing demands during prior negotiations were not FRAND. Both parties requested the court to order production of evidence, including license agreements, to determine what constitutes FRAND terms in this case.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour challenged Athalonz's athletic shoe sole patent via IPR, asserting obviousness based on combinations of prior art references like Won and Norton. The Board decided to institute the proceeding, finding that factors weighed against discretionary denial despite the complexity of the technical arguments.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges the validity of JHU's patent (11,339,219) in an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that all eight claims are anticipated by or obvious over prior art, primarily citing the MSI-H Study Record and various combinations thereof. This petition seeks to invalidate the core claims related to treating MSI-H tumors with pembrolizumab.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325975) in a Petition, arguing all claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record and rendered obvious by combinations of prior art. The petitioner asserts that the study record inherently discloses every limitation of the claimed method for treating MSI-H patients with anti-PD-1 antibodies.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11325974) in an IPR, arguing that all claims are unpatentable. Petitioner asserts the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and various prior art combinations render them obvious under § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent (10934356) in an IPR, asserting that all claims are anticipated or obvious. Petitioner relies heavily on the MSI-H Study Record and various prior art references to demonstrate invalidity across multiple grounds. This petition sets up a significant challenge to the scope of PD-1 inhibitor patents for MSI-H cancers.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's patent (8249932) in a PTAB petition, arguing that key claims related to targeted advertising and social networking are obvious. The petitioner asserts that combinations of prior art from Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones render the challenged claims unpatentable under 103.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
Under Armour successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR on claims related to athletic footwear sole technology, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board granted institution, adopting key claim constructions and recognizing the validity of multiple prior art combinations cited by the Petitioner.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding anti-cancer immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates key claims, warranting further trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured institution of its IPR challenge against Sitnet LLC's patent 8249932, challenging claims based on obviousness over prior art. The Board accepted the Petitioner's arguments regarding claim construction and found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one ground.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed features, including gradient compression and uniform heel platforms, were obvious in light of references like Umezawa, Gallas, Won, and Talarico '911. This outcome represents a significant loss for Athalonz, LLC regarding its footwear patent portfolio.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.
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.