IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 131 of 159 · 4,764 total
Alpha Foundation for Education and Research v.Akara Education Private Limited
The Madras High Court allowed multiple appeals filed by Alpha Foundation against the Assistant Registrar's decision to treat their opposition as abandoned. The court ruled that the failure of the Registrar to provide proof of service of the counter statement was fatal, overriding procedural delays in filing evidence. Consequently, the opposition has been restored, and the challenged trademark registrations have been held in abeyance pending a full hearing on the merits.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against ClickFunnels, arguing the Board overstepped authority by applying the new Hulu rule retroactively. The petition asks the Director to hold the decision pending the Federal Circuit’s pending §101 appeal.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ website‑navigation patent, arguing the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative of prior art considered during prosecution.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. filed a preliminary reply urging the PTAB to institute its IPR against ClickFunnels’ patent on website navigation. The petitioner argues the new references were never before the Office and are not cumulative, so the Board should not deny institution under §325(d).
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
ClickFunnels (Etison LLC) submits an authorized response urging the PTAB Director to deny HighLevel’s request for a review, citing the Hulu decision and prior district‑court invalidity of the claims. The brief argues that instituting another IPR would be inefficient and that the petitioner’s reliance on the Ford case is misplaced.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
DH International seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against Apple’s ‘294 patent, arguing discretionary denial based on settled expectations and a defective translation of the Suga reference that should not count as prior art.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00172 concerning patent 9,022,294. The institution decision remains in effect, leaving the challenged patent intact.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
HighLevel, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of ClickFunnels' website‑creation patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of five prior‑art references. The petition also requests that the Board not invoke discretionary denial under the Fintiv precedent.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 13 claims of DH International’s ’333 patent covering a portable electronic device with an invariable activation command, asserting obviousness over McGregor, Palmer, and Tuttle references.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑20 of DH International’s ’294 patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Suga and Gorsuch. The petition requests institution and argues no discretionary denial grounds exist.
HighLevel, Inc. v.Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels
The PTAB denied HighLevel's IPR against ClickFunnels, citing the efficiency of the patent system. The denial was based on a parallel District Court finding that the challenged claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against DH International Ltd., finding insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments, specifically criticizing the Petitioner's use of hindsight in mapping prior art limitations onto the claimed electronic device.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
Apple successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against DH International Ltd's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over Suga in view of Gorsuch. The Board preliminarily construed key terms like 'invariable activation command,' finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
Apple Inc. v.DH International Ltd
The PTAB determined that all 20 challenged claims of the '294 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, finding obviousness over combinations of Suga and Gorsuch. The Board successfully rejected the Patent Owner's attempts to narrow key claim terms, upholding the Petitioner's broad interpretation of functional language.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited & Ors
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' product composition infringes on their patented weedicidal formulation, which includes a specific blend of chemicals. The case involves determining whether the Defendants' product violates the claims of the Plaintiff's patent.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
Levi Strauss & Company v.Inder Mohan Chadha
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Inder Mohan Chadha for infringement of its well-known trademarks, including 'Levi's' and the Two Horse logo. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, distributing, and selling apparels bearing falsified marks identical or deceptively similar to those registered by Levi Strauss & Company.
Eli Lilly And Company Private Limited v.Eskayef Pharmaceuticals Limited
Plaintiffs, Eli Lilly And Company, filed a suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 297760 (covering Abemaciclib) by the Impugned Drug 'Abeclib', manufactured by Defendant No. 1. The court prima facie found that 'Abeclib' infringes the patent and granted an interim injunction.
Business Objects Software Limited v.The Controller of Patents
Business Objects Software Limited appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its invention, titled 'Transparent Distribution and Module Decoupling Through Asynchronous Communication and Scopes', under Section 2(1)(j) of the Patent Act. The High Court found that the Controller's order lacked quality and failed to consider the appellant's amended claims during the hearing.
Wyeth Llc v.The Controllers Of Patents
Wyeth LLC appealed an impugned order regarding its patent application. The core dispute revolves around amendments made by the appellant from a PCT application (claiming a 'regimen') to subsequent national phase applications (claiming a 'combination' and 'pharmaceutical pack'). Wyeth argues these amendments were within the scope of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970.
Novartis Ag & Ors. v.Noviets Pharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.
Nababuddin Ahmed v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Kolkata And Anr
The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Nababuddin Ahmed, setting aside the unauthorized removal of his registered trademark. The court held that merely uploading a notice on an official website does not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the petitioner was not given individual notice and opportunity to rectify defects, the administrative action taken by the Registrar was deemed vitiated.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limits available to Netgear for filing a Statement of Defense and any counterclaim for revocation after Huawei extended its infringement action to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Local Division Munich had ordered the second patent's claims to be separated from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew its requests to set aside the separation order and to reject the claim extension, provided Huawei agreed to a three-month deadline to respond to the claim extension running from the Court of First Instance's order of January 18, 2024.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This procedural appeal before the Court of Appeal concerned the time limit for filing a Statement of Defense after a claim extension to add a new patent. Huawei had originally filed an infringement action on June 1, 2023, based solely on EP 3611989, and later sought to extend the claim to include EP 3678321. The Local Division Munich allowed the extension, prompting Netgear to appeal. The Court of Appeal addressed whether the defendant must be afforded the same time limit to respond to a newly added patent as would apply if a fresh action had been filed regarding that patent.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning a procedural appeal filed by Netgear against a decision of the Local Division Munich that separated the portion of the action based on European Patent EP 3678321 from the main proceedings under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal principle established is that the principle of due process requires that when a new patent is added to an already pending action, the defendant must be granted the same time limit to file a statement of defense—and potentially a counterclaim for revocation—as would apply if a new action had been filed regarding that patent. During the interim hearing, Netgear conditionally withdrew certain requests subject to Huawei's agreement on an extended three-month response deadline.
NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a corrigendum order from the Court of Appeal correcting Headnote 2, paragraph 3 of a prior order dated February 26, 2024, due to an obvious incorrectness. The case concerns European Patent EP 4 108 782 and involves proceedings on provisional measures between 10x Genomics and Harvard College as applicants/appellees and NanoString Technologies entities as respondents/appellants. The corrected headnote restates the principles of patent claim interpretation under Article 69 EPC and its Protocol, clarifying that the patent claim is not merely the starting point but the decisive basis for determining the scope of protection.
Pfizer Inc. v.Beacon Pharmaceuticals Limited
The case involves a patent infringement dispute where Pfizer Inc. claims that Beacon Pharmaceuticals has infringed on their patents. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted in favor of the Plaintiffs regarding the subsisting patents.
Diageo North America, Inc v.Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd.
Diageo North America filed a petition seeking rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BULLET MALTED WHISKY' registered by Venkateshwara Winery & Distillary Pvt. Ltd., alleging that it is deceptively similar to Diageo's well-known mark 'BULLEIT'. The court allowed the petition, finding that the petitioner had established a case for cancellation.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller of Patents concerning its patent application No. 5945/DELNP/2009. The appellant argued that the Controller's observation contradicted previous hearing notices and written submissions, specifically regarding industrial applicability under Section 2(1)(ac) of the Patents Act, 1970.
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.