IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 132 of 159 · 4,764 total
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Martinswerk Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Martinswerk Gmbh appealed the rejection of its product patent application for novel aluminum hydroxide flame retardants. The appeal argued that the Patent Controller repeatedly shifted and reverted between different limbs of Section 3(d) without providing a consistent or fair hearing process. The High Court found merit in these submissions.
Gm Modular Pvt Ltd. v.Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition filed by Gm Modular Pvt Ltd., successfully challenging the registration of a similar mark held by Mayur Electromeck Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Impugned Mark was not genuinely used in commerce, despite the respondent's claims. Based on the lack of substantial evidence of use and potential confusion with the established 'GM' brand, the High Court ordered the cancellation of the infringing trademark registration.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy and its affiliates have filed a joint motion with Trina Solar and Evervolt to terminate their participation in IPR2025-00006 after settling all disputes, including a related ITC proceeding.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Trina Solar’s 009 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering TOPCon solar cell structures.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision granted the petitioner a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all challenged claims related to solar cell technology. The grounds for obviousness centered on combining prior art references like Jin and Feldmann to achieve predictable improvements in TOPCon structure efficiency.
Runergy Alabama Inc et al. v.Trina Solar Co. Ltd.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that all 17 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board found specific combinations of prior art, notably Chang and Jin, rendered the claimed solar cell structures obvious.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics challenges the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that invalidated 13 claims of U.S. Patent 11,224,742, arguing the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of public accessibility and improperly admitted new evidence as rebuttal. The Patent Owner seeks Director Review to vacate the decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR resulted in claims 1‑13 of U.S. Patent 11,224,742 being found unpatentable. EMKinetics sought Director Review, re‑asserting printed‑publication arguments, but the Board denied the request, upholding its decision.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' U.S. Patent 11,224,742 covering non‑invasive posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder. The petition argues the claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Svihra, Amarenco, Mann and Ponsford and seeks institution of the trial.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully secured the institution of its IPR against EMKinetics, challenging claims 1-13 based on obviousness over combinations of prior art. The Board found that Petitioner adequately supported unpatentability by demonstrating skilled artisans could make the claimed modifications to existing nerve stimulation methods.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
The PTAB found all 13 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 103. The Board concluded that the claimed nerve stimulation therapy was obvious over combinations of prior art, specifically citing modifications to Svihra and Amarenco using Mann and Ponsford. This decision confirms the lack of inventive step for the technology described in the patent.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, challenged the charging of TDS and interest by the DCIT regarding annual payments made to international educational boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held these payments constituted royalty for using trademarks. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing and restored the matter to the AO for further clarification on the nature of the lump sum fees.
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
A.L.M.Holding Company v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
A.L.M.Holding Company appealed the Patent Controller's rejection of its application for a cold-in-place recycling method, which was rejected on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core dispute centered on whether prior art citing heat-based processes could invalidate an invention that specifically operates without heat in key stages.
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, appealed against orders charging TDS and interest on annual payments made to international education boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held that these payments constituted royalty for the use of trademarks and services provided by the overseas institutions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further clarification regarding the nature of the lump sum fees.
M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Mirshad C.E.502
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s.Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd., directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the opposition proceedings. The core issue was the Registrar's decision to dismiss the opposition as abandoned due to non-production of evidence. The court ruled that for an opposition to be validly initiated, the applicant must prove service of the counter statement on the opponent, and a mere assertion of email service without proof is insufficient under the Trade Marks Act.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.P.Krishnam Raju; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the cancellation of the trade mark 'SPICE' (Registration No. 1091801). The court noted that despite being served with the Registry notice, the petitioner failed to appear and prosecute the matter before the court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for default.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
B & D Technologies defends its lawn‑mower cab patent by asserting that the “rear wall” term means the interior rear wall and that the petitioner’s prior‑art references are not novel, seeking a discretionary denial of the IPR.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B & D Technologies have jointly moved to terminate IPR 2024‑01150 after reaching a settlement, citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a). The Board has not yet decided the merits, and related district‑court litigation was dismissed.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the PTAB’s Institution Decision in an IPR against Samsung Display. The request argues that the Board improperly relied on a now‑rescinded Guidance Memo and over‑emphasized a Sand Revolution stipulation, while under‑considering the imminent district‑court trial.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,632,815 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology filed a motion to withdraw its petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,004,602. The patent owner, KT Imaging, did not oppose, and the Board was asked to terminate the proceeding at its early stage.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries and B&D Technologies jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations during an IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display requests Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found Pictiva’s OLED claim unpatentable, arguing the Board ignored a jury verdict that upheld the claim and presented inconsistent claim‑construction arguments.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display argues that the Board’s obviousness findings for Pictiva’s OLED patent are sound and that no claim‑construction inconsistency exists, seeking denial of Pictiva’s Director review request.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products and National Nail settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,378,218 before the Board instituted a trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display has been given five business days to respond to Pictiva's Director Review request in IPR2024-01095, with a strict 15‑page limit and no new evidence allowed.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
Court decision.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
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.