IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 136 of 159 · 4,764 total
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn. v.The Controller of Patents
W.R.Grace & Co.-Conn appealed an order from the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on a propylene impact copolymer and method. The appellant argued that the rejection was flawed because the Controller failed to consider their written submissions and amendments made in response to prior art objections. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding procedural lapses, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Audertec Solutions Llp v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks & Anr.
Audertec Solutions LLP appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning 'a method and system for detecting road anomalies.' The Controller rejected the application, primarily citing a lack of inventive step compared to prior art D-2. The Delhi High Court was tasked with determining if the distinguishing features of the invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the disclosures in D-2. Ultimately, the court found no reason to differ from the Assistant Controller's decision.
Omega SA v.The Controller of Patents & Design, Government of India
Omega SA appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a ceramic element inlaid with metallic decoration, which was rejected by the Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The High Court found that the Controller failed to apply his mind properly to the issue and equated the hyper-precision technology to ordinary laser etching. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited, the registered proprietor of Indian 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, and subsequently an interlocutory injunction.
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg v.Ssf Plastics India Private Limited & Anr
Alpha Werke Alwin Lehner Gmbh And Co Kg appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10851/DELNP/2014) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on insufficient disclosure and lack of inventive step, as also in the context of a pre-grant opposition.
Su Kam Power Systems Limited v.Kunwer Sachdev & Anr. Kantaloop Communications & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple rectification petitions concerning the 'Su-Kam' trademark, pitting Su Kam Power Systems Limited against Kunwer Sachdev. The court noted that while the petitioner company holds a key registration, the defendant claims original conceptualization of the mark. Given the complex history involving insolvency and prior civil judgments, the court has directed both parties to file detailed notes and encouraged them to explore amicable resolution through mediation before listing the matter again.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of its PGR, arguing the Board improperly required seed sequencing under §103 for a plant utility patent. The petition seeks director review to overturn the denial and restore the ability to contest the patent without analyzing deposited seed.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial, leaving Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed patent intact.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung submits an authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, defending the Board’s findings that the ’802 patent’s claims are valid and that prior art references, including Sung’146, are properly considered. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung seeks to invalidate a CMP‑pad dresser patent (U.S. 9,138,862) by alleging that prior‑art references, especially Sung’026 and related disclosures, anticipate or render obvious all 20 claims. The petition argues public accessibility of the prior art and cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a petition for post‑grant review of Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,659,803 covering a corn variety. The petition asserts obviousness over three prior‑art patents, lack of specific utility, and raises a novel legal question about plant utility patents.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
Petitioners T-Mobile USA and AT&T Services challenge four claims of the '662 Patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) and priority date rejection (35 U.S.C. § 102). They argue that combining prior art references Lee et al. and Kim et al. renders the claimed carrier aggregation/HARQ methods obvious. The petition also challenges the patent's priority, arguing lack of support for specific limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's patent (9138862) in a Petition, asserting that various prior art references anticipate or render obvious the claimed CMP pad dresser technology. The arguments center on how Sung’026 and combinations with other references teach all limitations of the claims regarding particle arrangement and cutting depths.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the '802 Patent covering Chemical Mechanical Planarization (CMP) pad dressing technology. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Tsai et al., anticipate or render obvious all 21 claimed claims. This is a foundational challenge to the patent's validity in semiconductor manufacturing.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the validity of Sung's '270 Patent before the PTAB, asserting that claims related to CMP pad conditioning are obvious. The petition relies heavily on combinations of prior art references (Chou and Sung’479) to demonstrate non-obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of a PGR petition challenging the patentability of an inbred maize variety, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of showing unpatentability on merits. The Board specifically noted the lack of evidence regarding the claimed genotype and found no unsettled legal questions warranting institutional review.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health's IPR petition against Data Health Partners was denied by the PTAB, failing to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'without input from the clients,' reinforcing its exclusion of client-initiated data when generating scores.
T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. v.Wireless Alliance, LLC et al.
A group of major carriers, including T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson, challenged the validity of a patent owned by Wireless Alliance using obviousness grounds. The PTAB denied institution, finding that the petition lacked compelling merits despite the advanced stage of related district court litigation.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB granted institution for all 21 claims in this IPR, finding sufficient evidence of record that prior art (Tsai, Sung '026, Sung '146) anticipates or renders obvious the claimed technology. The decision was reached despite concerns regarding parallel district court litigation involving Samsung and other entities.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that most claims (1-9 and 12-21) of the '802 patent were unpatentable over prior art references, primarily Tsai. The Board relied heavily on anticipation and obviousness grounds, while also addressing written description challenges to specific claim limitations.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB found all 20 claims of U.S. Patent No. 9138862 unpatentable by anticipation or obviousness over Sung ’026. The technology relates to Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP) pad conditioning methods, and the Board concluded that Petitioner successfully established invalidity across all grounds presented.
Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board accepted the Petitioner's argument that combining Chou and Sung ’479 provided sufficient motivation to achieve the claimed narrow variation in CMP technology.
Wb Innovations Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged an order refusing patent application No. 2293/DELNP/2011, which cited issues regarding lack of single inventive concept and incomplete specification. The Delhi High Court found that the refusal reasoning did not meet legal requirements and allowed the appeal.
Maj. Pankaj Rai v.M/S Niit Ltd.
Maj. Pankaj Rai challenged an Arbitral Award dated 19.10.2023, which rejected his claims against M/S Niit Ltd. The dispute arose from a License Agreement (dated 30.12.2015) allowing the petitioner to set up an education center using NIIT's intellectual property. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Arbitral Award.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Navkar Agriculture Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.
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.