IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 135 of 159 · 4,764 total
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Jyoti Dewani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This document is uploaded for technical (CMS ) reasons only, in order to close the workflow. Margot Elsa KOKKE Digitally signed by Margot Elsa KOKKE Date: 2024.12.13 17:26:00 +01'00'
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
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.
C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED v.NOVAWELL
This procedural order concerns a review request filed by Novawell against an ex parte saisie order granted to C-Kore Systems Limited, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 265 793 relating to subsea apparatus and testing. The Court examined whether Novawell's review request was filed within the 30-day time limit under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure, addressing when the 'execution of the measures' begins for purposes of calculating that deadline. The Court also considered the criteria for granting the ex parte order, the distinction between preserving evidence and inspection procedures, and the conformity of the saisie carried out by an expert assisted by a bailiff with French national law.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 11,415,760 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential while moving to terminate the proceeding.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to challenge P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087) before the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The petitioner alleges that the polymer coating claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Cohen and Legein.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.
Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent 8265096, finding no reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prove unpatentability. The denial hinged on the Board's rejection of anticipation arguments based on prior art related to wireless data formats.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.
The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining references like Cohen and Legein, or Francesch and Legein, was motivated by intrinsic evidence and skilled artisan capabilities. This decision significantly impacts the patent owner's portfolio in plasma polymerization coatings for electronics.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. challenged 17 claims of Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s patent using grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed optical fiber connectors are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Raven, Kuffel, Wong, and Gniadek. The case was dismissed without a final ruling due to a stipulation not to pursue district court grounds.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals, the registered proprietor of Patent IN 228720 for 'Phthalazinone derivative' (Olaparib), filed a suit against Natco Pharma Limited alleging infringement due to Natco manufacturing and selling its generic version under the brand name BRACANAT. Kudos sought a permanent injunction, which was supported by an interlocutory injunction application.
Sicpa Holding Sa v.The Controller of Patents
Sicpa Holding Sa appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'Inline Spectroscopic Reader and Methods' by the Controller of Patents, which cited a lack of inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller had not adequately considered the detailed explanations provided by the appellant in response to the objections raised on prior art. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
M/S Lavos Performance v.M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Trial Court that dismissed its application to stay proceedings in an infringement suit, arguing that a revocation petition against the respondent's patent was pending before the competent authority. The Karnataka High Court ruled that while evidence relating to alleged infringement could be recorded, the final arguments on the merits of the suit must wait until the outcome of the patent revocation application.
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.