IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 124 of 159 · 4,764 total
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Shoals Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,689,153 covering solar lead assemblies. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness under § 112. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited challenged Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s surface cleaning apparatus claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing the technology is obvious and anticipated by multiple prior art references. The petition cites numerous grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103), primarily involving combinations of Liddell, Organ, Simpson, and Soler.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
AT&T and its partners filed a Petition challenging Daingean Technologies' '400 Patent, asserting that claims 5, 7, and 8 are anticipated or obvious by the prior art reference R2-1702708. The challenge focuses on dual-connectivity/5G standards, arguing that an Ericsson technical contribution discloses all elements of the challenged claims. This is a critical early stage attack in ongoing litigation against Daingean Technologies.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR challenge against the '153 patent covering solar power lead assemblies. The Petitioner failed to demonstrate a likelihood that any claims were unpatentable, despite raising numerous obviousness (103) and written description/indefiniteness (112) grounds.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against a patent covering cleaning apparatuses. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied AT&T's IPR against Daingean Technologies, finding that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success regarding claims related to code block segmentation and HARQ-ACKs. The denial hinged on insufficient support for the 'multiple CB/CBG limitation' in both cited prior art references.
AT&T Corp et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution of IPR against Daingean Technologies' patent, finding that the petitioner failed to prove its sole prior art reference (R2-1702708) was a publicly accessible printed publication.
Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co. Ltd. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Panasonic Intellectual Property appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8954/CHENP/2014) concerning an ARC-Welding method and apparatus. The appeal challenged the Controller's decision, arguing that the rejection based on lack of inventive step was not adequately reasoned or explained in the impugned order.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent, 'a self locking glazing system'. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and directed the parties to proceed with the suit. The Defendant contested the injunction, raising objections regarding the validity and suppression of the patent.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trade Mark and Geographical Indications
Malikie Innovations Limited appealed against the Patent Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its file system software. The Controller had raised objections primarily under Section 3(k), arguing it was pure software lacking hardware limitations. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, concluding that since the invention relates only to software and is permissible under existing guidelines, the refusal should be set aside.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
M/s.Star Plastics v.Chandrasekhar
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Star Plastics' petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register against Chandrasekhar's 'STARPRO' mark. The court found that despite the addition of the suffix 'pro', the similarity between the petitioner's registered word mark 'Star' and the respondent's 'STARPRO' was striking enough to deceive an ordinary consumer. Given both marks were in Class 17, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the infringing registration.
Up Hotels Clarks Limited v.Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn and Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Up Hotels Clarks Limited, cancelling a competing trademark registration held by Arjun Bhanot Trading As Arjun Clarks Inn. The court found that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established 'CLARKS' brand, which possesses significant goodwill and reputation dating back decades. Despite the respondent's claims of honest adoption, the court determined that the similarity, coupled with the identical class of services (hotels/restaurants), created a high likelihood of consumer confusion, thus violating trademark law.
Flipkart Internet Private Limited v.Godaddy Operating Company Llc & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the admissibility of a written statement in a trademark infringement suit involving domain names. The court clarified that in complex domain name disputes with numerous impleadments, the 120-day period for filing a written statement commences from the date the amended memo of parties is filed, not the initial notice date. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and permitted the defendants' written statement to be taken on record after they paid a stipulated fee.
NOVAWELL v.C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_397/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 26/03/2024 APPLICANT: C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED 3 Bramley's Barn The Menagerie, Skipwith Road - YO19 6ET - Escrick - GB Represented by Denis Schertenleib RESPONDENT: NOVAWELL
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Marinus Pharmaceuticals seeks to invalidate Ovid Therapeutics’ 2022 ganaxolone patent covering methods for treating status epilepticus, arguing anticipation, obviousness, and lack of enablement based on prior publications and press releases.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet seek a Director Review of a PTAB decision upholding InfoExpress’s network‑authentication patent. They contend the Board improperly allowed incorporation‑by‑reference arguments, violating USPTO rules and prejudicing the challengers. The petition asks the Director to vacate and remand the decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
InfoExpress defends its Network Access Control patent against Cisco and Fortinet’s Director Review request, asserting the Board correctly found no unpatentable claims. The petitioners’ new arguments are deemed untimely and forfeited.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet successfully defended claims of InfoExpress’s network‑access control patent in IPR2024‑00677; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Cisco’s request for review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00677 and related cases. The order confirms that no Director Review will be granted.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems requested Director Review in IPR2024-00677 concerning patent 8,578,444 owned by InfoExpress; the Board will decide whether to grant the review.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics challenges Marinus Pharmaceuticals' patent on ganaxolone, arguing that all claims are obvious over various combinations of clinical trial data and earlier patents. The petitioner asserts that prior art provides sufficient motivation for treating status epilepticus (SE) with the claimed dosing regimen.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed a Petition challenging 11 claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8578444) based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann renders the claimed network access control features predictable to a POSITA.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc. v.Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Ovid Therapeutics Inc.'s IPR challenge against Marinus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was denied by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (103). The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenges regarding plasma concentration limitations and priority.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO Systems and FORTINET successfully instituted an IPR against InfoExpress Inc.'s patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Krantz and Herrmann. The Board agreed that combining network authentication (Krantz) with policy enforcement (Herrmann) would teach the claimed method for auditing devices.
Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Apex Laboratories P.Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Apex Formulations Pvt. Ltd against Apex Laboratories P.Ltd. The petition, which sought the removal or rectification of a trademark registration (No. 343270) in Class 5, was withdrawn by the petitioner. This dismissal confirms that the parties had reached a compromise in an earlier case (C.S.No.614 of 1998), and the terms of that settlement remain binding.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register its trademark 'VAPOR PLUS'. The appeal sought to set aside the refusal order dated July 24, 2018. However, before the court could rule on the merits, the appellant voluntarily withdrew the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks). Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
M/s.Zeenath's Leather Planet v.Mr.M.Abdul Rasheed
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s. Zeenath's Leather Planet seeking the removal of Trade Mark No. 1623248 from the Register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the petition for default. This highlights the critical importance of timely representation and adherence to court schedules in IP litigation.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,945,885, leading to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement while denying its separation from the IPR files.
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.