IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 127 of 159 · 4,764 total
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Narender Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court upheld the existing interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited against Narender Kumar & Ors. The dispute centered on alleged passing off, where the defendant used the mark 'CAFTADAY' for an eye drop containing the compound ALCAFTADINE, deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark 'CAFTA'. Despite arguments from the defense regarding generic drug naming conventions and INNs, the Court found that the plaintiff had satisfied the triple test for passing off. Consequently, the injunction was maintained, preventing the defendants from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's issuance of a pre-grant hearing notice, arguing that it had not been provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opposers. The court found this procedural lapse and set aside the notice.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,212,146 after reaching a settlement. The motion cites statutory authority for termination and notes that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless have filed a renewed joint motion to terminate their inter partes review after reaching a settlement and filing a joint dismissal in district court.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell and AX Wireless settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,212,146. The Board granted the parties' joint motions to terminate the IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn and patent holder Intent IQ (AlmondNet) reached a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 10,715,878, prompting a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The PTAB granted Roku’s motion to join its inter partes review with Meta’s pending IPR, instituting review of claims 1‑4 and 6‑23 of the ’878 patent on the same 103 grounds used in the earlier proceeding.
LinkedIn Corporation v.Intent IQ, LLC
LinkedIn Corporation filed an IPR petition challenging 22 claims of patent 10715878, arguing they are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on Baig and Laidlaw to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in targeted advertising and device association technology.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
Roku challenges Intent IQ's patent 10715878 in a Petition, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references (Baig, Laidlaw, Sitaraman, Hahn, Xu, Gerace) to establish obviousness across various technical features related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking.
Roku, Inc. v.Intent IQ, LLC
The IPR petition against Intent IQ's '878 patent failed entirely, as the Board found no unpatentability for any challenged claim. The petitioner (Roku) argued obviousness over multiple prior art combinations related to targeted advertising using IP addresses.
Versuni Holding B.V. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Versuni Holding B.V. challenged the Patent Controller's hearing notice regarding its patent application, arguing that it was not provided with copies of the written statements filed by the two opponents. The court found that the procedure was flawed due to this omission.
L Oreal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
L Oreal appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 4652/DELNP/2013) for a process using thiopyridinone compounds. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider expert reports or properly analyze prior art under the Patents Act, 1970.
Ceat Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court dismissed Ceat Limited's appeal challenging the rejection of its trademark application 'FARMAX'. The court found that the appellant failed to adequately explain a significant delay in filing the appeal, rendering the condonation plea specious. Furthermore, on the merits, the court held that 'FARMAX' was structurally and phonetically similar to existing marks ('FORMAX' and 'FARMOX') registered for related goods (vehicles/tractors), creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
Puma Se v.Gajari Online Services Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Puma Se against Gajari Online Services Private Limited, ordering the variation of the respondent's registered trademark (No. 3685326). The court accepted the petitioner's argument that the 'leaping lion' device within the impugned mark was deceptively similar to Puma's well-known 'leaping cat' device. Consequently, the court directed the deletion of the leaping lion element from the trademark while allowing the word 'GAJARI' to remain.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Passiflora Pharmaceuticals
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Passiflora Pharmaceuticals, alleging trademark infringement of its registered mark 'FLORA' in the pharmaceutical sector. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for filing replies to the injunction application (Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC). The proceedings are moving forward with standard civil procedure steps, indicating an active dispute over brand reputation and market goodwill.
Genomatica Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genomatica Inc. appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Non-Natural Microbial Organisms with improved Energetic Efficiency'. The appeal challenged the Patent Controller's decision, arguing that the Controller failed to properly address objections related to amendments and fell back on earlier claims without due process.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco have settled with Cobblestone Wireless and jointly moved to terminate the IPR over the ’802 patent covering IEEE 802.11n technology.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia reached a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Nokia’s U.S. Patent 8,050,321. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential business information.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Cisco settled their IPR dispute with Cobblestone Wireless, filing the settlement as confidential and requesting termination of the proceeding.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
HPE and Cisco settled their IPR with Cobblestone Wireless over U.S. Patent 7,924,802, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Nokia has filed a Director Review request asking the PTAB to vacate its decision to institute an IPR against its MPEG‑1 video‑encoding patent, asserting that the Board abused discretion because the prior art discloses the claimed identifier‑resetting feature.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Nokia’s video‑decoding patent. The Patent Owner contends the Board misapplied MPEG‑1 and Kim disclosures, which describe encoder outputs, not the decoder resetting required by the claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00691, leaving Nokia's patent institution intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patents (8,050,321) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over established standards like MPEG-1 and prior art references such as Kim and Yagasaki. The petitioner asserts that existing technologies render the core inventive concepts of the patent predictable.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al. v.Cobblestone Wireless LLC
The PTAB institution decision upheld the Petitioner's challenge of nine claims based on obviousness in wireless communication technology. The Board accepted that prior art disclosures, including IEEE standards and Shearer, support the claimed dual-frequency transmission structure.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB granted institution for the patent covering video coding methods related to grouping image frames. The petitioner successfully argued that the claims are obvious over prior art references like MPEG-1, Yagasaki, and Kim. This decision sets a precedent regarding how standard technical specifications can teach complex encoding mechanisms.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller General of Patents and Designs
Qualcomm appealed the Controller General's order rejecting its patent application for an invention related to pilot transmission in wireless communication systems. The rejection was based on objections regarding lack of hardware support (Section 3(k)) and lack of novelty/inventive step (Section 2(1)(j)).
Novozymes A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Novozymes A/S appealed against the rejection of its Patent Application No.650/CHENP/2009, which covered 'Enzyme Granules for Animal Feed'. The initial objections raised by the Assistant Controller included lack of inventive step and non-patent eligibility under Section 3(d).
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.