IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 130 of 159 · 4,764 total
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s '174 patent claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The challenger argues that combining prior art references like Woods and Istvan renders the claimed user interface navigation concepts predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
DELL INC. et al. v.AX Wireless, LLC et al.
Dell Inc. filed an IPR challenging AX Wireless's patent 10079707, asserting that the claims are obvious based on combinations of prior art references. The petitioner argues that concepts like header repetition in OFDM packets were publicly disclosed in standards submissions long before the priority date. This challenge targets multiple claims related to wireless communication protocols.
VIZIO, Inc. v.Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 9510040 unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that the combination of prior art references, including Kim and Choi, provided sufficient motivation to combine teachings for various smart TV features.
M/S Imberatek Llc v.Apple Inc & Anr.
M/S Imberatek Llc filed a commercial suit alleging patent infringement against Apple Inc. Initially, the plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit to explore mediation, and the court allowed it with a refund of court fees. However, subsequent consideration found that since no urgent interim relief was sought, the plaintiff could not circumvent the mandatory requirement of pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, leading to the final dismissal of the suit.
Voicemonk Inc v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Voicemonk Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a system and method related to content recommendation using Augmented Reality. The Controller had raised objections regarding lack of clarity, subject matter eligibility (Section 3(k)), and novelty/inventiveness (Sections 2(1)(j) and 10(4)).
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit claiming infringement of Patent 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to stop the defendants from using or manufacturing the subject compound. However, the court noted evidence presented by the defendants showing they were already manufacturing the compound through a similar process prior to the patent application date.
Saera Electric Auto Limited v.Malak Techno Private Limited
Saera Electric Auto Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement suit against Malak Techno Private Limited through mediation. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the Delhi High Court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, Malak Techno agreed to cease all use of the impugned mark 'MAYUR' and any deceptively similar variations, acknowledge Saera as the sole owner of the 'MAYURI' trademarks and copyright in its logo, and pay damages totaling Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Sunil Dutt Trading As Kilter v.Pro Muscle Science & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the dispute between Kilter (owner of 'MUSCLE SCIENCE') and Pro Muscle Science regarding trademark infringement in the dietary supplement market. The court found that the Defendants' use of marks like 'PRO MUSCLE SCIENCE' was highly likely to cause consumer confusion, as the Plaintiff's registered mark is entirely incorporated into the competing names. Consequently, the existing interim injunction favoring the Plaintiff was confirmed. While the matter proceeds toward mediation, the ruling strongly affirms the protection afforded to established trademarks against similar competitors.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors v.John Doe And Others
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking to involve WhatsApp LLC in the proceedings. The court allowed WhatsApp's impleadment and issued specific directions requiring the platform to remove or block identified infringing groups and accounts associated with Sequoia Capital's trademarks. Crucially, while ordering the removal of known infringers, the court also mandated that Plaintiffs must first notify account holders before any further blocking action is taken, balancing enforcement needs with due process concerns.
Steindl Krantechnik Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.BEHA Bau- und Forstgreiftechnik, Inh. Georg Beha e.K.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures related to European Patent EP 3 287 315 before the Local Chamber Munich. Following an oral hearing on January 30, 2024, the parties reached a preliminary settlement, and the claimant subsequently filed an application under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure to confirm the settlement. The defendant consented to the settlement and both parties jointly requested its confirmation, confidentiality of its details, and noted that costs were already settled within the agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung’s IPR petition challenging ASUS’s LTE uplink patent (US 10,187,878) was denied. The Board found no reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 28 claims, citing insufficient motivation and lack of disclosure in the prior art. The patent remains in force.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC petitioned to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,634,491 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in the field of Oncology/Immunotherapy. The petitioner argues that key claims are anticipated by the MSI-H Study Record (EX1005) under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Furthermore, the remaining claims are deemed obvious when combining the MSI-H Study Record with various prior art references like Brown, Duval, Benson, and Koh under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,629,187 in an IPR proceeding before the PTAB. The petitioner argues that all claims are unpatentable under both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenged U.S. Patent No. 11,643,462 in the PTAB, arguing that all claims are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses the claimed method of treating MSI-H cancer with pembrolizumab, leading to a request for institution based on compelling evidence.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC challenges The Johns Hopkins University's patent (11,649,287) in an IPR proceeding based on anticipation and obviousness. Petitioner asserts that the MSI-H Study Record discloses all claimed methods, rendering the claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues for discretionary denial of institution is inappropriate given the prior art's relevance to the patent's scope.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung challenges ASUS's patent on LTE/5G uplink protocols, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on 3GPP standards and various industry proposals to demonstrate that the claimed features were already known in the field. This is an early-stage challenge setting the stage for a complex technical battle over wireless communication standards.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged The Johns Hopkins University's patent claims regarding MSI-H cancer treatment, leading the PTAB to institute proceedings. The petitioner argued that the claimed methods were anticipated by or obvious over existing prior art, including the MSI-H Study Record and various medical literature.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against The Johns Hopkins University regarding a patent on immunotherapy methods. The Board found reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under both 102 and 103, primarily based on the MSI-H Study Record.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 38 claims of the '491 patent unpatentable. The Board construed "in response to" as requiring a causal link between MSI-H/dMMR determination and treatment, which led to a finding that the MSR anticipated and rendered obvious the challenged claims.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 30 challenged claims unpatentable by anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully argued that the MSI-H Study Record anticipates the claimed methods for treating non-colorectal MSI-H cancers.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 36 challenged claims unpatentable by both anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board concluded that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipates the claimed methods, including those requiring pre-treatment testing for microsatellite instability high or DNA mismatch repair deficient status. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the context of oncology and immunotherapy.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
GenSquare LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, Patent Office
GenSquare LLC appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing its divisional patent application. The refusal was primarily based on the ground that the divisional claims did not flow from the original parent application. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Controller's reliance on an overruled judgment was flawed.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc appealed against an order rejecting its patent application. The core dispute revolves around whether the claimed method for data processing qualifies as an invention despite being classified as a computer program per se under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Niranjan Arvind Gosavi And Ors v.Innovatiview India Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit alleging that the defendant infringed their patent (No. 336205) related to secure document validation methods by bidding for an NTA e-tender requiring enhanced QR Code solutions. The court refused to grant an ad-interim injunction, considering the impact on the tendering process, but directed the defendant to maintain full accounts if they succeed in the tender.
Bayer Pharm Aktiengesellschaft v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Bayer appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 5818/DELNP/2006), which was rejected on grounds that the composition did not meet criteria under Sections 3(e) and 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adhere to principles of natural justice by not clearly communicating all objections in the hearing notice, and ruled that the claimed composition was patentable.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs (F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag) filed an application seeking the constitution of a Confidentiality Club. The Defendant (Zydus Lifesciences Limited) argued that access should be contingent upon preliminary findings regarding the identity of the biosimilar to the innovator drug. The Court directed both parties to submit their proposed members for the confidentiality club.
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
PepsiCo, Inc. v.Majji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Joy Creators Llp v.Bath And Body Works Brands Management Inc.
The Delhi High Court directed both parties to engage in mandatory pre-litigation mediation regarding a trademark infringement dispute concerning the use of 'JOY'. The plaintiff sought an injunction against Bath & Body Works for alleged passing off and trademark infringement. However, the court noted that the defendants had previously proposed a resolution, suggesting they would only sell the product through their own branded stores to avoid confusion, and were willing to refrain from filing trademarks on 'JOY' as a descriptive term. Given these discussions, the Court mandated mediation to explore an amicable settlement before proceeding with litigation.
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.