IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 121 of 159 · 4,764 total
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
The defendant filed an application seeking discovery of facts and particulars of the plaintiff's product to obtain a declaration of non-infringement under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the dispute regarding whether merely furnishing 'full particulars in writing' is sufficient or if the actual product must be shared.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Abdus Salam Khan
In a suit concerning alleged counterfeiting and infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. The court allowed exemptions for urgent proceedings, including waiving advance service and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the need for swift action against counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate the alleged infringements, allowing access to premises and financial records to gather evidence regarding the unauthorized use of unique designs and the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of two impugned copyright registrations related to a confectionary tablet label. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' and cited prior rejection orders as res judicata. The Court deferred final adjudication, requiring both parties to clarify the pending issues in the underlying suits.
M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited, allowing them to renew their trademark registration despite missing the statutory renewal deadline. The court found that the notice sent by the Registrar's office was never properly received by the petitioner due to incorrect addressing and procedural errors. This decision underscores the importance of proving proper service of official communications in IP matters.
Kubota Corporation v.Kaira Agros & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.
GS1 India v.Deepak Traders & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of GS1 India against Deepak Traders & Ors. The dispute centers on the exclusive licensing and allocation of specific 13-digit GTIN barcodes (starting with '890') within India. The court found a prima facie case, noting that defendants were allegedly contravening the Terms of Use by allocating these unique identifiers to unauthorized entities, thereby disrupting the global GS1 identification system.
Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc. v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany u.a. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited against Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE regarding European Patent EP1612910. The defendants requested that certain information in their Rejoinder, particularly projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, be declared confidential trade secrets with access restricted to a maximum of three named reliable persons. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were attempting to delay proceedings. The Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restrictions under Rule 262A.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) to classify certain information in their Rejoinder as confidential trade secrets under Rule 262A, specifically projected sales figures for a potential twelve-month enforcement period following a possible injunction. The defendants sought to restrict access to no more than three named reliable persons. The plaintiff (Avago Technologies) opposed the request, arguing it was a delay tactic and sought to lift the preliminary access restrictions. The Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Hamburg issued a final procedural order addressing the confidentiality and access restriction application.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Vibrant Concepts And Designs
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed suits alleging that Vibrant Concepts And Designs infringed upon its intellectual property rights, specifically concerning its patented technology and registered designs for frameless gas cooktops. The plaintiff claimed their products were world's first and featured unique design elements and a patentable internal piping system providing visual leak feedback. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement, it dismissed the interim injunction applications, directing both parties to proceed to trial.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on objections concerning lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). Google argued that its amended claims introduced differentiating features over the cited prior art.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited successfully secured an ex-parte interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors. The court granted permission for a Local Commissioner to be appointed, enabling the seizure and confiscation of alleged counterfeit products bearing the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand. This decisive order allows the plaintiff to take immediate action against infringement across multiple IP rights, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design.
Retail Royalty Company And Anr v.Rohit Madan, Trading As Sita Outdoor Media
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff, Retail Royalty Company And Anr, to amend a previous court order. The amendment corrected an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the specific description of the 'Flying Eagle Device' trademark. This procedural step ensures that the legal proceedings accurately reflect the intellectual property rights being asserted.
M/S. P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S. Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a multi-faceted judgment addressing several IP disputes involving the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark. In one suit, the court decreed P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.'s claim against Thukral Mechanical Works, while simultaneously ordering the cancellation of an older registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works in Class 7. Furthermore, the High Court set aside previous rejection orders for P.M. Diesels' trademark applications, allowing them to proceed toward registration.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant challenges Vigilytics's '012 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to de-identification and tokenization in healthcare data. The petitioner argues that combining known concepts from prior art references like Evenhaim, Murphy, Dick, and Landi renders the claims predictable. This is an early petition for review filing focused on fundamental privacy compliance techniques.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant, Inc. successfully challenged 20 claims of Vigilytics LLC's patent (10886012) in an IPR proceeding, arguing that the technology for de-identifying medical data was obvious over prior art references like Evenhaim and Murphy. The PTAB decided to institute the case, finding a reasonable likelihood Petitioner would prevail on at least one claim.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
The PTAB denied US Conec's request to institute IPR against Senko Advanced Components, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims related to fiber optic connectors.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,061,190 by asserting obviousness (Section 103) over multiple combinations of prior art references including Nakagawa, Raven, Veatch, Connelly, and Cline. The petitioner argues that the combination of these references would have been predictable to a POSITA, while also contesting the applicability of § 325(d) discretionary denial.
Mayo Foundation For Medical Education and Research v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal concerns the patentability of a method for detecting autoantibodies in biological samples. The respondent argued that the method was ineligible under Section 3(i) because it described a diagnostic process. The petitioner countered, but the respondent raised a legal challenge based on a Madras High Court judgment, arguing that the previous finding (that in vitro methods were acceptable) was incorrect.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Nexkem Biotech Pvt. Ltd.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Nexkem Biotech for infringing its patent related to Empagliflozin. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit by arguing that pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act was not exhausted, as there was no urgency. The court dismissed this objection, finding that the suit did contemplate urgent interim relief and noting the defendants' admission of infringement.
Apl Apollo Tubes Limited v.M/S Steel Track & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Apl Apollo Tubes Limited against M/S Steel Track & Ors. regarding trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Defendants' use of 'APOLLO/APOLLO TMT' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established marks, risking irreparable harm to their brand equity. While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in filing the suit, the Court issued a comprehensive restraint order covering all marketing and sales activities, though it exempted goods already manufactured by the Defendants.
north side brewers private ltd v.the registrar of trade marks
North Side Brewers Private Ltd appealed a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, prompting consideration of relevant case law regarding the Registrar's discretionary powers and precedents concerning trademark delays.
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd v.Rama Krishna Books
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaypee Brothers Medical Publisher Pvt Ltd against Rama Krishna Books. The publisher alleged that the defendant was selling substandard, infringing copies of their medical textbooks while also misusing their registered trademarks. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and ruled that granting the injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business interests in the specialized medical publishing market.
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.