IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 126 of 159 · 4,764 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bisscience Inc.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-03-22) under reference UPC-001556, 10x Genomics, Inc. appeared in dispute with Curio Bisscience Inc. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Soto, Alexander et al.
AT&T and the Soto patent owners have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,238,754 covering passive optical network technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR, requesting the Board treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek’s request for rehearing of its earlier decision denying institution of an IPR against MOSAID’s 9,350,349 patent covering power islands with plural sleep transistors. The Board found MediaTek’s arguments insufficient and no abuse of discretion.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers and North Atlantic Imports have settled their dispute over a cooking‑appliance patent and jointly moved to dismiss the inter partes review.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
The IPR concerning U.S. Patent 10,660,473 was terminated after the petitioner and patent owner reached a settlement and jointly moved to dismiss the proceeding.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and LED maker BX LED have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,973,465 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites lack of institution and no merits decided, requesting Board approval of termination.
Nichia Corporation v.BX LED LLC
Nichia and BX LED settled their LED patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. successfully petitioned PTAB to institute an IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s patent, challenging claims related to power management in integrated circuits. The petition asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's '907 patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references including Goldenberg and Levin. The petitioner asserted compelling evidence of unpatentability across all 20 claims based on various grounds of anticipation and obviousness.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenges the validity of North Atlantic Imports' griddle patent (10660473), asserting that core features are obvious in light of prior art. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of references, including Williams and May/Best, to invalidate numerous claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID, finding that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over prior art references related to integrated circuit power management.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied MediaTek's IPR against MOSAID's patent 8253438. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of showing obviousness over prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno, particularly regarding the 'plurality of power islands' limitation.
Loco Crazy Good Cookers, Inc. v.North Atlantic Imports, LLC
Loco Crazy Good Cookers challenged North Atlantic Imports' cooking appliance patent on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The PTAB instituted review, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim would be obvious based on the prior art references. This moves the dispute toward trial preparation in District Court.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB found all 12 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board concluded that combining various prior art references—including Kim, TechnoBuffalo, and Ma—rendered the VOD user interface methods obvious.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,627,907 B2 unpatentable under both § 102 and § 103. The Board rejected the patent owner's narrow claim constructions, finding them inconsistent with intrinsic evidence, and concluded that prior art references (Goldenberg, Rosenberg) anticipated or rendered the claims obvious.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha appealed the Patent Office's decision to reject its patent application concerning a gene sequence designed to increase plant biomass. The appellant argued that the rejections were based on misconceptions regarding claim scope, subject matter eligibility (3j), and inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Nripendra Kashyap v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting his patent application for a reference signal design in cellular communication systems, citing objections under Sections 10(4) and 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the amendments were merely cosmetic substitutions and criticized the Controller's cryptic rejection, ultimately allowing the appeal.
The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School Nand Teachers Training College v.Rajneesh Arora And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a joint application regarding the settlement between The Board Of Directors Of The Woodstock School and Rajneesh Arora. As part of the agreement, Respondent No. 1 agreed to withdraw their impugned trademark (No. 1519967) registered in Class 41. Furthermore, Respondent No. 1 also withdrew oppositions filed against the Petitioner's trademark applications (Nos. 2825545 and 2825546). The Court directed the Trademark Office to process these withdrawals expeditiously, confirming that both parties remain bound by the settlement terms.
Kaushalya Devi Sabu & Ors. v.Rajkumar Sabu
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex family dispute concerning the trademark 'SACHAMOTI' used for sabudana. The appeal challenged a lower court judgment that favored the respondent, holding that the appellants failed to prove prior use of the mark. Recognizing the contentious nature and the underlying familial connection to the brand creation, the Court directed that the status quo ante should be maintained until the final disposal of the appeal. This allows both parties to continue operating their businesses without claiming sole ownership.
Pidilite Industries Ltd. v.Sanjay Jain & Anr
Pidilite Industries Ltd. sought the rectification and cancellation of a respondent's trademark ('POMA-EX KIWKHEAL') under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that it was deceptively similar to their well-known mark 'FEVIKWIK'. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, holding that Pidilite could not claim a monopoly over the generic element 'KWIK' or its variations. Furthermore, the court noted that the rectification application must stand on its own merits and cannot rely solely on prior injunctions granted in separate infringement suits.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited against Samvid Ventures Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'Western Choice' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, including 'Officer's Choice.' This crucial ruling immediately restricts the defendants from manufacturing or selling alcoholic beverages using the infringing label. Furthermore, the order mandates a structured process for the disposal of existing stock while the main suit proceeds.
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v.Ldd Bioscience Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interlocutory injunction in favor of Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited against Ldd Bioscience Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'TUMOTIN' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'TUMORIN,' leading to a prima facie case for infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. While the injunction restricts future use, the parties were also directed to mediation to amicably resolve the dispute.
Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding procedural remedies against decisions of the Rapporteur concerning objections (Einspruch) under Rule 19 RoP. The appellants (Netgear entities) challenged a procedural order from the first instance dated December 11, 2023, in proceedings involving alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989. The Court of Appeal addressed the proper procedural pathway for challenging the Rapporteur's decisions on objections, clarifying the interplay between Rule 333.1 RoP review by the panel and Rule 220.2/220.3 RoP appeals.
Poly Medicure Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Poly Medicure Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order which concluded that its subject patent lacked inventive step. The appellant argued that the subject application claimed improvements over an earlier granted patent (Patent No. 327649) and sought conversion into a patent of addition under Section 54 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Court found merit in this submission.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appellant filed an auxiliary request proposing amended claims for their patent application. These amendments were necessitated by limitations granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The court addressed issues related to prior art and whether the subject application constitutes a method of treatment.
Nymox Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Nymox Corporation filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application. The rejection was based on grounds related to novelty, inventive step, and subject matter limitations under the Patents Act, 1970.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
Eveready Industries India Limited v.Ksc Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries India Limited against Ksc Industries & Ors. The court found that the Defendants' use of the mark 'EVERYDAY' was deceptively similar to Eveready's well-known trademark, 'EVEREADY', leading to potential infringement and passing off. Given the prima facie case made out by Eveready and the risk of irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under the impugned mark until further hearing.
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.