IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 145 of 159 · 4,764 total
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
HP, Dell, and Lenovo have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Pat. 7,187,307, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art block‑encoding disclosures (Shin, Yusairi). The petition requests the Board to institute review and invalidate the claims.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Rally’s email‑cloaking patent, asserting obviousness over three prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc./Netgear Deutschland GmbH/Netgear International Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321. The central procedural issue was whether to change the procedural language from German to English, given that both patents were granted in English and two members of the panel were not native German speakers. While the defendants consented to a full language change and the plaintiff opposed it but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English, the presiding judge ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English while keeping the procedural language as German.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against three NETGEAR entities regarding European Patents EP 3 611 989 and EP 3 678 321, both granted in English. The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English, and whether the oral hearing should be conducted in English. The defendants consented to a change of language to English, while the plaintiff opposed a full change but was open to conducting the oral hearing in English. The presiding judge ultimately ordered that the oral hearing be conducted in English, applying the flexibility principles of Rule 1.1 RoP.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Respondent
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed a revocation action against ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking revocation of European patent EP 2 796 333 before the Central Division (Paris Seat). ITCiCo Spain S.L. filed a procedural application seeking an extension of the time limit for delivery of its statement of defence to 29 February 2024, citing delayed access to case exhibits through the Case Management System and the illness of its long-standing European Patent Attorney. BMW opposed the extension, arguing that service had been completed on 25 November 2023 and the defence was accordingly due by 25 January 2024. The presiding judge and judge-rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi issued the order on 9 February 2024.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_424/2023 Procedural order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 9 February 2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 16/11/2023 Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego -
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Man Truck Bus Se v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
The appellant, a commercial vehicle manufacturer, appealed the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application. The appeal argued that the Controller ignored foreign patents filed by the appellant and violated natural justice by relying on prior art (D5) during the hearing which was never included in the initial notice.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
Havells India Limited v.B R Engineering Works & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.
Usha International Limited v.Rex Global Limited & Anr
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BUTTERFLY', the Delhi High Court allowed Usha International Limited (Plaintiff) to introduce crucial additional evidence. This decision was made in response to Rex Global Limited's (Defendant) allegations that the Plaintiff lacked proprietary rights and concealed material facts, specifically referencing an earlier adoption of the mark by a Chinese entity. The court recognized the necessity of these documents—ranging from Trade Marks Office reports to records from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce—for a comprehensive adjudication of ownership claims.
Oikos S.P.A. v.Oikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.
In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
Ocado Innovation Limited v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2024-02-08) under reference UPC-001620, Ocado Innovation Limited appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
LEDUP MANUFACTURING GROUP LTD. v.Seasonal Specialties, LLC
LEDup Manufacturing filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the PTAB’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 8 of the ’794 patent remain patentable. The appeal targets the Board’s claim‑construction and other adverse rulings, and is now before the Federal Circuit.
Arista Networks, Inc. v.Orckit Corporation
Arista Networks and Orckit Corporation filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to terminate the pending IPR over patent 10,652,111.
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.