IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 133 of 159 · 4,764 total
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. v.--
Reolink Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging KT IMAGING US, LLC's patent (8004602) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims related to integrated lens modules and image sensor structures are anticipated by combinations of prior art references like Imaoka/Seo and Ma/Wood.
Curtis Industries, LLC et al. v.B & D TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Curtis Industries filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent 10,632,815 regarding air-conditioned lawn mower cabs. The petition asserts obviousness based on combining prior art references like Toro Video and Judice to show that repositioning the A/C unit was a predictable design improvement.
PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v.National Nail, Corp.
PrimeSource Building Products filed an Inter Partes Review challenging Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,378,218 owned by National Nail, Corp. The Petitioner asserts that the claim is unpatentable under both 35 U.S.C. § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness).
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc. v.Shoulder Innovations, Inc.
Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.'s Post-Grant Review petition against Shoulder Innovations, Inc. was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to establish a 'compelling merits' showing for either obviousness (103) or indefiniteness (112).
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Pictiva Displays International Ltd.'s patent, leading to institution of the IPR. The Board focused on Ground IX, finding a reasonable likelihood that Claim 9 is unpatentable over Suzuki and Caldwell regarding OLED technology combined with touch sensing functionality.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Board found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known OLED elements, such as specific dopants or encapsulation layers, would have been routine and predictable to a skilled artisan.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding seven claims unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The decision centered on the combination of prior art references in Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) technology, specifically regarding dopants and encapsulation methods.
Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks & Anr.
The Intellectual Property Attorneys Association (IPAA) approached the Delhi High Court seeking directions to suspend limitation periods under the Trade Marks Act, citing severe disruptions in accessing the Trademark Registry's online portal. The petitioner highlighted persistent technical difficulties, including non-functional e-filing services and payment gateway issues, which were causing stakeholders to lose valuable IP rights. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter, directing the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) to appear on the next date to provide detailed solutions and status updates regarding the systemic failures.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.
Frances Shenker v.M/S Allanasons Private Limited
In a dispute over the 'STEAKHOUSE' mark, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking to challenge the plaintiff's registered trademark. The court found prima facie merit in the defendant's contention that the descriptive word might be invalid under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the court framed the issue regarding the validity and rectification of the mark and granted the defendant three months to file a formal rectification petition.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v.Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement between Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited (Plaintiff) and Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Defendant). While the Plaintiff presented extensive evidence of market presence, sales, and potential consumer confusion regarding the marks 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' and 'BABY FOREST', the court ultimately dismissed the applications seeking an injunction against the use of the latter. The judgment emphasized the need for a composite assessment, referencing the established 'Pianotist test,' to determine likelihood of confusion.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
AUGUST DEBOUZY v.Respondent
Martin Lionel applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for public access to several Registry documents and communications related to revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_263/2023) between BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents did not submit any comments on the application. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 262(1)(b) covers only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, and does not extend to Registry communications, formal-checks notifications, or court orders on procedural matters such as stays.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-PDGFR alpha antibody, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a discovery of a naturally existing molecule. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and recombinant technology involving transgenic mice, making it non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Monsnto Technology Llc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
Monsnto Technology Llc appealed the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'Chloroplast Transit Peptides'. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on incomplete consideration of claims and citation of subsequent prior art. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a Gamma Sterilizable RFID system. The invention utilizes a ferro-electric random access memory (FRAM) chip with redundant information storage to ensure data integrity when exposed to high-intensity gamma radiation used in sterilization processes. The Madras High Court examined whether this combination was obvious based on existing prior art, particularly regarding redundancy techniques. Ultimately, the court found that the nature and purpose of the claimed redundancy were fundamentally different from those disclosed in the cited prior art, thereby satisfying the inventive step requirement.
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
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.