IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 137 of 159 · 4,764 total
Idamakanti Madhusudhana Reddy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register 'Doctor Reddys Path Labs,' which was based on similarity to an existing mark. The court found merit in the appellant's argument that the word 'Reddy' is generic and that the marks operate in different classes of goods/services (Pathology vs. Pharmaceuticals). Crucially, the High Court mandated a fresh review by the Registry, requiring it to consider Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, even if opposition from a well-known mark arises.
Shri Ram Autotech Private Limited v.Garima Singh Proprietor Of Ambika Industries
In this interim order concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court accepted the Defendant's proposal to substantially modify their contested mark. Despite the Plaintiff's concerns regarding residual similarity in font style, the Court ruled that the overall changes sufficiently reduced the likelihood of consumer confusion. The Defendant was allowed a grace period of two months to exhaust existing inventory while transitioning to the new mark, provided they comply with all regulatory requirements.
Fintie Llc Through Mr.Nai Chu Cheng v.Vivekananda Chintapalli Of Flat 5 & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Fintie LLC's petition seeking the cancellation of a conflicting trademark registration. The court found that the respondent had registered the identical word mark 'FINTIE,' relying on the petitioner's established goodwill and prior use in other jurisdictions. Given the clear identity of the marks, the court ruled it inappropriate for the respondent's mark to remain on the register.
Campus Activewear Limited v.Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in Campus Activewear Limited vs Jqr Sports(India) Private Limited regarding alleged infringement of trademarks and designs related to shoes. The court formally registered the commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial. Furthermore, the urgent application seeking a permanent injunction was listed for further hearing, indicating that the core dispute over copying Campus's brand and design is moving forward.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v.V.Nataraja trading as M/s.Nataraja Traders
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., directing the cancellation of a deceptively similar trademark registered by V.Nataraja Traders. The court found that the respondent's mark was strikingly and confusingly similar to the petitioner's established 'ArokyA' brand, despite minor differences or added devices. This decision reinforces the principle that similarity in appearance, color scheme, and overall impression can lead to trademark cancellation, even if the infringing party attempts slight modifications.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_495/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/02/2024 APPLICANT ICPillar LLC 4265 San Felipe Street, Suite 1100 77027 - Houston, Texas - US Represented by Lionel Martin RELEVANT OTHER PARTIES ARM Limited 110 Fulbou
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art references rendered the claimed features predictable to one skilled in the art.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1783/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order did not properly assess non-obviousness, failing to apply established legal principles regarding inventive step analysis. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Adama India Private Limited v.FMC Corporation & Anr.
This order addresses multiple suits filed in the Delhi High Court concerning patent infringement. Adama India Private Limited has sought a declaration that its CTPR manufacturing process does not infringe FMC Corporation's patent (IN 298645), while FMC Corporation seeks permanent injunction against Adama India for infringement.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_440/2023 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/02/2024 DEMANDEUR : 1) Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd 65-16, Sandan-ro 163beon-gil, Danwon-gu - 15429 - Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do - KR Représenté par Pauline Debré DÉFENDEUR :
Meril Italy srl v.Respondent
This case concerns a generic application (App_7364/2024) lodged within a revocation action (UPC_CFI_255/2023) regarding European patent EP 3646 825. The claimant, Meril Italy srl, requested permission to exchange further written pleadings, arguing that the defendant, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, introduced new defence arguments in its rejoinder regarding the priority issue and the alleged scope of the patent. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi considered the request under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which confers discretionary powers to the judge-rapporteur to allow further exchange of written pleadings upon a reasoned request.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.
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.