IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 141 of 159 · 4,764 total
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. successfully challenged several claims of The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania in an IPR proceeding regarding gene therapy/AAV technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) using combinations of prior art references.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A. et al. v.Eye Therapies, LLC et al.
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition challenging key claims of a patent related to vasoconstriction agents for eye redness. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, despite arguments from the Patent Owner regarding prior art limitations and adverse events.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al. v.The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.
The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Sequenom, Inc And Anr v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellants challenged the rejection of their Indian Patent Application No. 2476/DELNP/2011 by The Controller of Patents on multiple grounds, including Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. Given that the challenge under Section 3(i) is being deliberated in a batch of appeals before another Bench, the Court decided to tag this appeal for hearing before that same Bench to ensure uniformity.
Addala Sitamahalakshmi v.State Of Andhra Pradesh
The petitioner, a publishing house, challenged G.O.Rt.No.858 dated 09.11.2010, which restricted book printing rights to one entity (Respondent No.4), leading to an inspection and seizure of the petitioner's books. The petitioner argued that their business was being unfairly targeted and that non-literary scientific books are not protected by copyright.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Mehboob Ahmad v.Muneer Ahmad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the rejection of a device mark application for painting brushes. While the court upheld the finding that the mark was registrable (i.e., it had distinctive character), it noted that the initial Examiner's order failed to address objections under Section 11(1) regarding similarity with earlier marks. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by remitting the matter back to the Examiner, directing them to proceed only on the grounds of Section 11(1) and allowing the registration process to continue.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
Mustafa Raza Dhorajiwala Sole Proprietor of M/s Kemei India v.Dinesh Kumar Proprietor of M/S Jai Laxmi Marketing and Anr
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Kemei India against a copyright registration held by Jai Laxmi Marketing. The petitioner argues that the 'KEMEI' mark was improperly registered as a copyright despite its prior existence and registration as a trademark in 2013. The court has initiated proceedings, issuing notice to all parties and setting a timeline for filing replies, moving the case toward substantive dispute resolution.
Khadi & Village Industries Commission v.Ms. Saraswati Devi And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Khadi & Village Industries Commission against Ms. Saraswati Devi and others. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated a prima facie case that the Defendants' use of 'KHADI BHANDAR' is deceptively similar to its registered KHADI Trademarks and Charkha Logos, leading to a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. This interim order immediately restrains the Defendants from using the infringing marks in relation to identical goods.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the defendant in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_454/2023) brought by Tandem Diabetes Care entities regarding European patent EP 2 196 231, to extend the deadline for filing its defence to revocation. Roche argued that a pending preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction would not be decided before the current deadline expired, making it unreasonable to finalize submissions that might become unnecessary. The Court, presided by Judge Paolo Catallozzi, considered the request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which grants discretionary powers to extend time periods upon reasoned request.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns an action for declaration of non-infringement filed by Tandem Diabetes Care entities against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH regarding European patent EP 2 196 231. While Roche's preliminary objection on jurisdiction was pending, Roche filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the deadline to file its defence. The Court examined Roche's request under Rule 9(3) of the Rules of Procedure, weighing arguments relating to the pending preliminary objection, parallel revocation proceedings, and the potential for a stay under Rule 76(3).
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
Ceva Santé Animale S.A. filed an IPR challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,806,124, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on multiple combinations of prior art references (Gershman, Pierre, Yavnai, Tao) related to poultry sexing and image analysis.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition challenging Identitii Limited's patent (10984413), arguing that the claims are obvious under Section 103. The petitioner contends that combining Smith and Seger renders nearly all claimed features predictable for POSITA in financial technology.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.Identitii Limited
The PTAB denied JPMorgan Chase Bank's IPR against Identitii Limited, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references like Kennedy and Kurani-816.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al. v.Targan, Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 1-15 of the patent are unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board's construction of 'unrestrained chick' was crucial, defining it as a chick free to open its wings on the moving platform.
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed an order dated June 21, 2022, passed by the Patent Officer rejecting their patent application. The application, filed in 2017 as a national phase PCT filing, relates to video coding and decoding technology.
Shri Dhiraj Kumar v.R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Shri Dhiraj Kumar against R H Agro Overseas Pvt Ltd. The petitioner had challenged an injunction granted by the District Judge, arguing procedural flaws related to pre-litigation mediation and statutory bars under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court ruled that since the parties had already engaged in and failed mediation, re-arguing the necessity of pre-institution mediation was untenable. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's plea regarding appeal restrictions under the TM Act, allowing the original suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off to continue.
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks; K.Suma Trading as Suma Oil Agencies
M.K.Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a rival trademark registration, arguing it was deceptively similar to its own mark. The petitioner also noted that the rival trademark had expired and not been renewed. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as having become infructuous, effectively upholding the status quo regarding the challenged registration.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Orchid Healthcare (A Division Of)
The Madras High Court allowed Alkem Laboratories Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's decision to register 'TAXTAM'. The court found that despite the registry listing several differences (such as product type or price), the marks 'TAXIM' and 'TAXTAM' were phonetically and visually deceptively similar. Citing established legal precedent, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the rectification of the Trademark Register to protect Alkem's prior rights.
Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a previous rejection by the Trade Marks Registry. The core issue was the similarity between the appellant's registered word mark 'ORKID' and the respondent's applied-for word mark 'ORZID' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical products). The Court found that despite minor spelling differences, the marks were visually similar and capable of causing confusion, thereby directing the rectification of the trademark register.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr v.Satyajit Herma & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Peak Xv Partners Advisors India LLP, restraining the defendant from using specific domain names bearing the 'PEAK XV' mark. The court recognized the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation associated with the brand, despite the defendant claiming ignorance regarding trademark registration. Furthermore, the parties were directed to participate in mediation to seek an out-of-court settlement.
M/s.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. v.Antony Adams
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd., granting permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing and passing off their trademarks 'Kalyan' and 'Kalyanjewellers' through the domain name <kalyanjewellers.com>. The court also issued a mandatory order directing the cancellation and subsequent transfer of the disputed domain name to the plaintiff, affirming the principles of cybersquatting remedies.
MGM Healthcare Private Limited v.Varamm Healthcare Private Limited
In a significant ruling concerning trademark disputes, the Madras High Court clarified the procedural requirements under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The court held that while a formal plea in the written statement is ideal, a specific plea of invalidity taken by the defendant in an interlocutory counter affidavit can suffice to raise the issue of validity. Given the prima facie case made out by the defendant regarding prior use and invalidity, the Court allowed the applications, framed the preliminary issue on trademark validity, and adjourned the suit for three months to allow the defendant to file a rectification application.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The Board denied Comcast’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in the IPR concerning Entropic Communications’ patent 11,399,206. The denial applies to three related IPRs filed by the same parties.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Entropic Communications seeks Director review of an IPR where the PTAB declared all 18 claims of its cable‑broadband patent unpatentable. The owner alleges procedural abuse, invented arguments, and inconsistent rulings with a related IPR. It requests reversal and termination of the proceeding.
Comcast Corporation et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
Comcast submits an authorized response urging denial of Entropic’s request for Director Review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, asserting no abuse of discretion and that the Board’s explanation of the Zhang reference satisfies the required memorandum.
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.