IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 140 of 159 · 4,764 total
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
F- Hoffmann -La Roche filed a suit for infringement against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning two patents related to Pertuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in cancer treatment. The court issued several procedural orders and directed both parties to provide exhaustive legal and scientific assistance, including disclosing experts and considering an independent Scientific Advisor, while the core issue of formulation identity remains pending.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The petitioner filed an application seeking the revocation of a suit patent granted to the respondents. The dispute involved whether a previous undertaking given by the respondents, restricting them from hindering the petitioner's business through distributors, should continue. The court ultimately held that the undertaking was no longer sustained.
Odi-Ray Industries Limited v.Life Style International Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a petition filed by Odi-Ray Industries Limited seeking the removal or rectification of the trademark 'SPICE IT UP (Label)' registered in favor of Life Style International Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on the scheduled date. Consequently, the entire original petition was dismissed for default.
Tempting Brands Ag v.Mr.Parasmal Purohit
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Tempting Brands Ag, ordering the cancellation of Mr. Parasmal Purohit's registered trademark (No. 1690863). The court found that the respondent had literally copied the petitioner's mark, making only a minor cosmetic change ('66' to '69'). The judgment strongly condemned this act as theft and dishonest adoption, reinforcing the principle of protecting prior rights against subsequent imitation.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Inc. , Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Softw
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2207270. The court decided, under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with Article 33(3) UPCA, to hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and the defendants' counterclaims for revocation and FRAND licensing together rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The court reasoned that joint hearing promotes efficiency, allows for a unified interpretation by the same panel, and is justified given the court's early operational stage and the part-time availability of some panel members.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. , OROPE Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order concerning European Patent EP 2 207 270, issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court decided, after hearing the parties, to jointly hear the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. together with the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and the counterclaim concerning a FRAND license under Art. 33(3)(a) EPGÜ. The court further directed the Reporting Judge to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge to the panel.
Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Netgear for shortening of time limits (acceleration of appeal proceedings) under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed an order of the Local Chamber Munich that granted Huawei's request to extend its claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321) in the main proceedings, which originally concerned only EP 3611989. The Court of Appeal rejected the application for acceleration, holding that filing on the last day of the applicable time limits did not justify shortening, given the respondent's interests and principles of due process, even though this could result in the statement of defense being filed in the first instance proceedings before the appeal is decided.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
Champion Laboratories successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against HENGST SE's patent (9023203). The petition asserts that key claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, including Yokoyama and Cline.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
Apple Inc. filed a Petition challenging the validity of RJ Technology LLC's patent '641, asserting that claims 1-18 are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Uemura and Abe. The petitioner argues that the claimed battery characteristics are fully disclosed or rendered obvious by combining these existing technologies.
Champion Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.HENGST SE
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against HENGST SE's patent, finding that Petitioner met the reasonable likelihood standard for claim 1 despite parallel district court litigation. The Board determined that Fintiv factors outweighed those favoring discretionary denial.
Apple Inc. v.RJ Technology LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the patent unpatentable as obvious in view of prior art. The Board focused heavily on claim construction, specifically defining 'charge cut-off voltage' based on practical full-cell operation rather than just applied charging potential. Claims 2–4 and 6–18 were found invalid under 103.
Pushpendra Yadav v.Kent Ro Systems Ltd
Pushpendra Yadav challenged an interim court order that restrained him from selling water purifiers or using specific marks, citing alleged infringement of Kent Ro Systems' registered design and trademarks. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the injunction primarily because the relevant Design No.219309 had expired. However, the court clarified that it did not rule on the merits of the passing off claim, which remains under consideration.
BMI Group Danmark Aps (Formerly Icopal Danmark Aps) v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs and Another
The appeal challenges the refusal of a patent application (No. 202017020602) by the Assistant Controller, which was based on non-compliance with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Appellant argued that the Assistant Controller's reasoning regarding prior art was cursory and lacked sufficient justification. The Court found the existing reasoning insufficient and issued notice to the Respondents for reconsideration.
Ht Media Limited v.Coolboots Media Private Limited
The Delhi High Court formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Ht Media Limited against Coolboots Media Private Limited. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting exemptions and setting timelines for filing documents. Crucially, the court also initiated interim injunction proceedings regarding the alleged misuse of similar marks ('SHINE' vs 'OUTSHINE') and directed both parties to explore mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-21) under reference UPC-001601, FUJIFILM Corporation appeared in dispute with Kodak GmbH a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The parties filed a joint motion to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information and to terminate the proceeding.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies jointly request that their settlement agreement be kept confidential and separate from the IPR patent file.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Eye Therapies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,596,600 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and patent owner ICPillar LLC have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,367,657. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under statutory authority.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited and ICPillar LLC settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,367,657, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement and dismissed the proceedings.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC filed a Director review request challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute IPR2024-00566 against Arm Limited, arguing the panel misapplied discretionary denial guidance.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
ICPillar LLC requests Director review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Arm Limited’s patent, arguing the panel misapplied Fintiv guidance and that the petitioner’s stipulations were untimely.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy’s and Eye Therapies settled their IPR dispute, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
The USPTO denied Arm Limited's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00566 concerning patent 9,367,657. The original institution decision remains in effect.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
i4F Licensing NV initiated an IPR challenging VILOX AB's patent (11421425) covering floor panel joining systems. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Miller and rendered obvious over Miller alone or in view of Roy.
Arm Limited v.ICPillar LLC
Arm Limited petitioned the PTAB to challenge ICPillar LLC's patent 9367657 on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that prior art references, including Banerjee and Rompaey/CoWare I, teach the claimed hardware/software co-design functionality. The Board has instituted the matter due to compelling merits in the challenger's arguments.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories challenges the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,600 regarding brimonidine eye drops using obviousness over prior art. The Petition argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to use low concentrations for treating ocular redness. The Board is urged to deny institution based on Hatch-Waxman goals and alleged Examiner error.
i4F Licensing NV v.VILOX AB
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by i4F Licensing NV against VILOX AB's patent, finding that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient support for anticipation or obviousness over prior art references Miller and Roy. The Board specifically found insufficient evidence regarding a curved horizontal locking surface disclosed in Miller.
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.