IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 144 of 159 · 4,764 total
A.K. Al Muhaidib And Sons v.Chaman Lal Sachdeva And Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, removing the mark 'AL-WALIMAH' (TM No. 523217) from the register. The petitioner successfully argued that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark in relation to goods in Class 30 for a continuous period of five years. Given the lack of evidence of genuine commercial use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the removal of the mark.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Narinder Kumar M/S Kundan Trading Company v.Surinder Pal M/S Kundal Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the 'KRANTI' trademark, which was registered in favor of the respondent. The case faced significant procedural hurdles due to the death of the original respondent and subsequent difficulties in locating legal representatives. Given the complex status of the parties, the court issued notices to the former counsel and the trademark agent to determine if any family members claim rights to the impugned mark.
Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court found that Dr Reddys Pathlabs Private Limited was in prima facie contempt of a previous court order by expanding its operations under the 'DR. REDDY'S' mark, even if those new centers were directly owned rather than franchised. The Court ruled that the original undertaking to maintain status quo was intended to prevent any proliferation of business under the contested mark, regardless of ownership structure. Consequently, the Defendant was served with a show cause notice regarding contempt.
Panasonic Holding Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH
1 Local division Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 14 February 2024 here: Application for production of documents and protection of confidential information acc. to R. 190/191, 262, 262A RoP Patent at issue Patent
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla challenges Graphite Charging Company's patent (8,291,243) in an IPR proceeding, arguing the claims are invalid. The petition asserts grounds of obviousness over prior art references Wang, AESO Report, and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
Tesla successfully navigated the PTAB's discretionary denial hurdles, leading to the institution of its IPR challenge against Graphite Charging Company LLC. The Board found that Tesla demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation and obviousness over prior art references like Wang and Cooley.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-13) under reference UPC-001610, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd
Nokia Technologies OY filed a patent infringement suit against Vivo Mobile Communication Co Ltd and others, claiming infringement of their patent related to mobile telecommunications. The case involved multiple hearings and ultimately led to a settlement agreement between the parties.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Amit R Gowda v.C.Kiran Trading As A And A Fitness Training Center; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Amit R Gowda seeking the cancellation and rectification of Trademark No. 3065086 in Class 41. The court noted that the Registry's notice to the petitioner was returned as undeliverable, making it difficult for the court to proceed with the matter. Although the petition is closed, the petitioner retains the right to revive it upon receiving proper notification.
Made Easy Education Private Limited v.Telegram Fz Llc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed ongoing infringement issues concerning educational video content on Telegram. While the defendant, Telegram, has complied with previous takedown orders, the plaintiff continues to face proliferation of infringing links and source code issues. The court allowed the plaintiff time to present technical evidence regarding these persistent infringements, while reserving a discussion on dynamic injunctions for future hearings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against three Dexcom entities before the Paris Local Division. The order addresses service difficulties, particularly with Dexcom International Limited in Ireland, and aligns the deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence for all three defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur approved the parties' agreed reasonable extension, setting the starting point for all defendants at 15/01/2024, with the Statement of Defence expected by 15/04/2024.
SAS LASER COMPONENTS v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001614, SAS LASER COMPONENTS appeared in dispute with Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ICPillar LLC v.Respondent
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, brought an infringement action against twelve defendants of the ARM group of companies. When standard service methods failed—particularly delivery to Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o. in Poland—the Claimant sought authorization under Rule 275.1 of the Rules of Procedure for alternative methods of service. The Court authorized alternative service only to the extent that the original methods had failed, rejecting the proposed method that merely replicated the already-attempted registered letter approach, and clarified the application of the ten-day delay rule under the Hague Service Convention.
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-02-12) under reference UPC-001612, ICPillar LLC appeared in dispute with ARM Limited Apical Limited Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o Simulity Labs Limited Hyperglance limited SVF Holdco concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Newyu,Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Abbott, Abbott B.V., Abbott Oy, Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott Gesellschaft m.b.H., Abbott S.r.l., Abbott France, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories A/S, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, including multiple Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The dispute centered on the alignment of deadlines for filing the Statement of Defence (SoD) across all defendants, given that service on some defendants was delayed or still in progress. Following a case management meeting where all parties orally agreed on a reasonable extension date, the Judge-Rapporteur ordered that the time limit for filing the SoD be aligned for all defendants, with the starting point set at 15 December 2023 and the SoD expected by 15 March 2024.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon secured an institution of IPR against Regeneron's VEGF‑antagonist formulation patent (10,464,992), covering claims 1‑18, after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of success.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and Brazos Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,441,721, a fiber‑Raman amplifier invention, and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and statutory authority for termination.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco and WSOU Investments settled their IPR dispute over patent 8,441,721 before trial. The Board dismissed the petition on the parties' joint motion to terminate.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Formycon AG has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 52 claims of Regeneron's anti‑VEGF ophthalmic formulation patent, arguing obviousness over prior‑art formulations and presentations. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial under §§ 314(a) and 325(d).
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of YMTC’s 3D NAND patent, arguing obviousness over Nishikawa, Lu, and Nishikawa2 references and asserting no discretionary denial factors.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1,2,4,6,19,21 of the ’721 Raman‑pump optimization patent, arguing they are obvious over Sugaya and, in combination, over Farmer. The petition stresses prompt filing and argues against discretionary denial.
Formycon AG v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB denied Formycon AG's IPR against Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., citing substantial overlap with parallel district court proceedings (MDL). The Board found that the interests of system efficiency were best served by denying institution.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully challenged several claims in the NAND Flash patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness grounds. The Board found that modifying TAC shapes and implementing dummy channels were simple advancements supported by prior art.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec appealed against the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application based on lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the controller unfairly relied on prior art cited earlier, which the controller had subsequently given up in a hearing notice. The High Court found that a fair hearing was not accorded and allowed the appeal.
Villain Lifestyle Private Limited v.Mr. Vipul Dhankher
The Delhi High Court rejected the defendant's attempt to have the trademark infringement suit dismissed, upholding the maintainability of the case. The court recognized that the plaintiff's apprehension—based on the defendant's filings for registrations and oppositions using a similar mark 'VILEN'—constitutes a valid cause of action under the doctrine of quia timet. This ruling provides strong judicial backing for proactive IP protection against imminent infringement threats.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Malla Rajiv
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. against Malla Rajiv for infringing on their trademarks and copyrights related to packaged drinking water. The court found that the defendant's use of 'JK COPPER+ WATER' was an unauthorized imitation, causing consumer confusion and diluting the plaintiffs' goodwill associated with brands like 'TATA COPPER+ WATER'. Consequently, the suit was decreed, granting permanent injunction, damages amounting to ₹ 10 lakhs, and recovery of actual legal costs.
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.