IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 129 of 218 · 6,517 total
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft settled their IPR challenge to EyesMatch’s ’109 patent. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and sealed the settlement agreement.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG challenged Everlight Electronics' Patent No. 9,640,733 in a PTAB petition, asserting that the claimed LED carrier structure is unpatentable. The petitioner raised multiple grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) against several prior art references. This challenge targets core structural elements of the light-emitting diode packaging.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA challenges the '802 Patent's claims (1, 2, 3, 8) in a Petition, asserting they are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior art references. The Petitioner argues that various references, including Chen and Baker, disclose all elements of the claimed nasal application formulations.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
Phillip Morris Products S.A. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Products S.A. filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 24, 2024, which rejected their patent application (No. 201617026827) under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request while directing parties to file written submissions.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application (no. 202117021605). The High Court granted exemption in a related interlocutory application and directed parties to file written submissions.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for both parties to file their respective pleadings, including affidavits of admission/denial of documents. Additionally, several interlocutory applications seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service were granted by the court.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Sudheer Sharma And Ors
Ambuja Cements Limited filed a suit alleging that several defendants were fraudulently using its 'AMBUJA CEMENT' trademarks and associated domains to run phishing websites, deceiving consumers into making payments. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, directing the maintenance of status quo on relevant domain names and ordering telecom/internet service providers (MEITY and DoT) to suspend access to these fraudulent sites. Furthermore, the court mandated that various defendants provide KYC documents and details of registered phone numbers to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Singh And Singh Law Firm Llp v.Singh And Singh Attorneys
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiffs (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP) against the Defendants (Singh And Singh Attorneys). The court found that the defendants were infringing upon the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and goodwill associated with the name 'Singh & Singh'. Despite modifications to the scope of relief sought, the court affirmed the right of the Plaintiffs to protect their brand identity, emphasizing the international reputation and established goodwill of the law firm.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.Microcosm Pharma & Ors.
In a trademark infringement suit, Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. filed a claim against Microcosm Pharma regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between its registered mark 'PEGMOVE' and the defendant's mark 'PEG-MU'. During court proceedings, the proprietor of Defendant No. 1 voluntarily offered to discontinue the use of the impugned mark and undertake not to adopt any similar marks. While the suit continues for formal registration and issue framing, this offer suggests a potential path toward an amicable resolution.
Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. v.Himanshu Bhandari & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Nandi Infratech P. Ltd. against Himanshu Bhandari & Ors. The court allowed exemptions from pre-institution mediation and filing certain annexures, while also proceeding with the main injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark 'AMAATRA BANQUETS' against the registered trademark 'AMAATRA'.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
Carrier Corporation, proprietor of European patent EP 3 414 708 (relating to adaptive sensor sampling of a cold chain distribution system), appealed an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) that rejected its request to stay revocation proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, holding that the UPC will not normally stay revocation proceedings and that the mere fact that the EPO has granted accelerated opposition proceedings is not sufficient to justify a stay under Rule 295(a) RoP.
Hershey India Private Limited v.Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani and Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trademark litigation cases involving Hershey India Private Limited and Mohammed Arif Mohammed Hussain Akbani after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The dispute, which involved various commercial IP matters including suit and rectification petitions, was resolved through mediation before the court. The court accepted the terms of the settlement agreement dated May 1, 2024, thereby disposing of the main suit while adjourning related rectification petitions subject to compliance with the agreed-upon clauses.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited v.Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (Amul) filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'AMUL BINDASS' registered in Class 25. The court accepted the arguments that Amul is the owner of the well-known mark 'AMUL' and has associated device marks, initiating formal proceedings. Notice was issued to Jg Hosiery Pvt Ltd, setting the stage for a detailed legal contest over trademark rights.
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.