IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 131 of 218 · 6,517 total
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Orca Security Ltd., demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness claims (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board preliminarily agreed with Wiz's claim construction arguments regarding snapshot analysis and API usage based on prior art references.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent covering virtualization and cloud security. The Board found sufficient evidence that the combination of prior art references would render the claims obvious, leading to a trial.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
WIZ, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11663031) in cybersecurity/cloud computing. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103), particularly regarding the combination of prior art references Veselov and Price.
Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
The appellant, Paresh Ajitkumar Kapoor, appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller cancelling his registered design for an Air Cooler (No. 233559) based on alleged prior publication in China. The appeal contended that the cancellation relied only on insufficient evidence from the CNIPA website and ignored previous rejections of similar claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.
Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. v.Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaipuria Edutech Foundation against Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust. The court found that the defendant continued to use deceptively similar trademarks despite a terminated franchise agreement and cease-and-desist notices. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using 'Jaipuria International Schools' and 'Seth M.R. Jaipuria School' marks, though the injunction will not take effect until July 15, 2024, allowing time for compliance.
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied their application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside their appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC.
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC. in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing seeks cancellation of DLX Enterprises' ‘496 patent covering rapid‑deployment hub shelters, alleging on‑sale and public‑use bars based on pre‑filing sales and a 2017 exhibition. The petition provides sales invoices, design drawings, and exhibition photos as prior art.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
The PTAB denied a request to reverse the denial of institution for IPR2024-00947, finding that Kane was not 'previously presented art' and that it was substantially similar to Knott.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Mr Lakshit Goyal Proprietor Of Rama Domestic Appliances v.Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark infringement proceedings between Mr Lakshit Goyal's Rama Domestic Appliances and Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks ('HPC APPLIANCES'). While several procedural applications were disposed of, the core suit was registered, and notice was issued to the defendant, setting the stage for detailed arguments on trademark similarity and infringement.
Arm Germany GmbH & Others (ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Ireland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited) v.Ex Parte
The provided document contains only metadata indicating approval signatures and timestamps dated 20–21 May 2024, with the phrase 'Hyväksyn dokumentin' (Finnish for 'I approve the document'). No substantive judgment text, facts, legal arguments, or operative decision is available in the source material.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited & SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging infringement of European Patent 2 043 492 (relating to hand-held vacuum cleaners) by SharkNinja's Shark Detect Pro models. The court granted the injunction, ordering SharkNinja to cease offering and supplying the infringing models in Germany and France, subject to a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, while requiring Dyson to initiate main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
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.