IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 138 of 218 · 6,517 total
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Nike’s 9,510,636 footwear patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art knit‑shoe references.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers petitions the PTAB to invalidate Nike’s 9,060,562 patent covering knitted shoe uppers, asserting that all 23 claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art such as Dua‑592 and Okamoto.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑7, 10, and 12‑13 of Miracor’s U.S. Patent 11,351,356 covering a catheter‑based LVAD. The petition argues that four prior‑art references disclose every claim limitation, making the claims obvious under §103. The Board has not yet ruled on institution or denial.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak's 10,165,879 patent covering removable cap assemblies for drink containers, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate CamelBak’s 11,851,250 drink‑bottle patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art cap‑assembly references.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. WELL SERVICES, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of U.S. Patent 11,959,533 covering multi‑plunger hydraulic fracturing pumps, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance seeks to invalidate Nike’s 2014 footwear patent covering a knitted upper with a thermally bonded skin layer, arguing the claims are obvious in view of prior art such as Becker, Dojan, Wildeman and Farys, and requesting the Board to institute the IPR.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB due to failure to meet the reasonable likelihood of prevailing standard. The Board rejected key claim constructions and found that prior art references did not adequately disclose the claimed integral knit tongue feature.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.'s IPR challenge against Nike, Inc.'s footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to meet the threshold burden of showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any unpatentability challenge.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
The PTAB denied TROVE BRANDS' request to institute IPR against CamelBak Products regarding drinkware cap mechanisms. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over combinations of prior art references like Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits.
TROVE BRANDS, LLC v.CamelBak Products, LLC
TROVE BRANDS successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against CamelBak Products' drinkware patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds (103) over prior art references including Nakajima and Ribarits. This decision sets up a detailed examination of complex mechanical features in beverage containers.
Abbott Laboratories et al. v.MIRACOR MEDICAL SA
Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's cardiac assist pump patents based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s broader claim constructions for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' leading to the institution of the IPR.
New Balance Athletics, Inc. v.Nike, Inc.
New Balance Athletics, Inc.'s IPR petition against Nike's footwear patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenges over multiple prior art references.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This order concerns a preliminary objection lodged by Tandem Diabetes Care entities (as defendants in a revocation action) seeking dismissal of a revocation action brought by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH concerning European patent EP 2 196 231. Tandem argued that the court lacked jurisdiction due to a standstill agreement requiring 90 days' prior written notice before filing IP-related proceedings. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the standstill clause was valid and applicable to IP disputes, its violation constitutes a matter of inadmissibility rather than a ground for lack of jurisdiction.
CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V. v.BEGO Medical GmbH
In a nullity action concerning EP 2 681 034 B1 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, the claimants (CEAD B.V. and CEAD USA B.V.) requested court-ordered simultaneous interpretation from German into Dutch, alternatively English, for an interim hearing and oral hearing. The court rejected the request for court-funded interpretation under Rule 109(1) RoP, finding that the claimants already had three German-speaking legal representatives who had extensively written in German, and that the language skills of one additional representative did not justify court-ordered interpretation. However, the court granted the subsidiary request for interpretation at the claimants' own cost under Rule 109(2) sentence 2 RoP.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Design's order dated January 2, 2024. The refusal was based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970, concerning the Appellant's Indian Patent Application No. 201917025257.
R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd v.M/S. Navnath Pipes
The plaintiff, R C Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd., claimed that the defendant, M/S Navnath Pipes, was infringing its distinctive trademark 'PLASTO/' in relation to plastic pipes and fittings. The dispute arose when the plaintiff discovered the defendant using a deceptively similar mark for manufacturing and selling impugned goods.
M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v.Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.
Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and removal of the trademark registration 'MAZELO' held by Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, permitted the petitioner to amend their petition to include the Registrar of Trademarks as Respondent No. 2. This procedural step moves the case forward toward challenging the validity of the existing trademark.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The defendants (TCL entities) requested that the plaintiff (NEC Corporation) be ordered to submit the HEVC standard version referenced in its statement of claim, as the annex submitted (Annex BP 6) inadvertently contained the predecessor AVC standard instead. The court ordered the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim within 10 days to provide the correct standard version.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical’s IPR against EMKinetics resulted in the PTAB finding claims 1‑10 of U.S. Patent 9,002,477 unpatentable. EMKinetics’ attempt to obtain Director Review was denied as untimely, leaving the Board’s decision intact.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services have filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate IPR2024-01274 concerning a hydraulic fracturing patent owned by U.S. Well Services.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01274 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’992 hydraulic fracturing patent. The Board has not yet decided any merits, and the parties seek dismissal of the related district‑court case as well.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical has filed an IPR petition challenging EMKinetics' 9,002,477 patent covering posterior tibial nerve stimulation for overactive bladder, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
Avation Medical, Inc. v.EMKinetics, Inc.
Avation Medical successfully challenged EMKinetics' patent (9002477) in a PTAB decision, asserting that the claims were anticipated or obvious. The Board found strong evidence supporting unpatentability over multiple prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against U.S. Well Services regarding a hydraulic fracturing system patent, asserting multiple grounds of obviousness (Section 103). The Board found that the Petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable, leading to institution for all 20 claims.
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.