IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 146 of 218 · 6,517 total
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
Mankind Pharma Ltd. v.Gurinder Singh
The Delhi High Court allowed Mankind Pharma Ltd.'s petition seeking the cancellation of a competing trademark registered by Gurinder Singh. The court held that due to Mankind's long-standing use and established goodwill, its marks (including 'MANKIND' and the 'KIND' family) had acquired well-known status. Consequently, the registration of the impugned mark was deemed violative of Sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Trademarks Act, leading to its removal from the register.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments v.Vandhana Jain & Anr.
M/S. Vaibhav Equipments initiated trademark opposition proceedings against Vandhana Jain & Anr., challenging the registration of identical marks in classes 9 and 35. The petitioner asserts prior use of their trademarks, including 'VESUMO' and 'SUMO', since 1997 for welding tools, arguing that the subsequent adoption by the respondent is in bad faith. The court has issued notice to the respondents and scheduled the matter for further pleadings and hearing.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
M/S Vans Inc. Usa v.Fcb Garment Tex India ( P) Ltd. And Anr
The Delhi High Court took proactive steps to streamline complex intellectual property disputes involving M/S Vans Inc. Usa and Fcb Garment Tex India. The court ordered the consolidation of three separate trademark rectification petitions concerning the marks 'IVANS NXT', 'IVANS', and 'IVANS Active'. Furthermore, it directed the transfer of a related civil suit from the Patiala House Courts to be heard alongside these IP matters. This move ensures that all interconnected disputes are adjudicated together under one judicial umbrella.
Keestrack N.V. v.Geha Laverman B.V.
Keestrack N.V. filed an infringement action against Geha Laverman B.V. before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning European patent EP3713672. Before any substantive proceedings, Keestrack filed a request to withdraw the action with the defendant's consent. The court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, MediaTek Inc.
Daedalus Prime LLC sought a panel review of a judge-rapporteur's order denying its request for an extension of time to lodge its Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 2792100. The Court of Appeal confirmed the denial, holding that Daedalus could and should have sought external advice and comprehensively set out its arguments before lodging the Statement of claim, and that CMS issues were insufficient to justify an extension.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems and Semiconductor Design Technologies settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,603,636, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding without a final written decision.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence and Semiconductor Design Technologies have settled their dispute and jointly moved to terminate the IPR covering U.S. Patent 7,603,636, an electronic design automation patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Advanced Coding Technologies have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,986,303 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied instituting its IPR against XR Communications’ wireless patent. The petition argues the Board erred on claim construction and denied a hearing on a sua sponte construction, violating precedent.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia request Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR on their 5G‑related patent, arguing the Board added an unsupported ‘pre‑equalization’ step in claim construction. They seek vacatur of the denial and to proceed with the review.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The USPTO denied Ericsson and Nokia's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-00314, leaving the original denial of institution intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Advanced Coding Technologies settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement as confidential. No merits were decided.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences filed a motion to dismiss an inter partes review of its aortic valve patent, arguing the case is pre‑institution and barred by a prior infringement lawsuit. The Board is asked to terminate the proceeding without a decision.
Edwards Lifesciences Corp et al. v.Aortic Innovations LLC
Edwards Lifesciences Corp challenges the validity of Aortic Innovations LLC's patent covering transcatheter heart valve implantation methods, arguing that the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that specific limitations added during prosecution do not provide sufficient inventive step and rely on established Board findings from previous IPR proceedings.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems challenges the 7603636 patent, owned by Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC, on grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The petition argues that automatic generation of verification assertions from graphical specifications was predictable using combinations of prior art in IC design.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,986,303 in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references Demircin and Kimoto under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Samsung also addresses discretionary denial provisions of the AIA.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and other petitioners filed an opening petition challenging 7177369's validity on grounds of obviousness (103) and anticipation (102). The challenges focus heavily on the combination of prior art references (Wong, Minn, Lehne) to invalidate claims related to OFDM channel estimation and smart antenna technology.
CADENCE DESIGN SYSTEMS, INC. v.Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. successfully instituted an IPR against Semiconductor Design Technologies, LLC regarding a semiconductor verification patent (7603636). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over multiple combinations of prior art references under 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung challenged two claims of Advanced Coding Technologies' video coding patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The PTAB found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, leading to institution of the IPR.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson and Nokia's IPR petition against XR Communications LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the petitioner did not persuasively show that prior art constituted 'pre-equalization.'
Pfizer Inc v.Everest Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patent related to the pharmaceutical product 'LORLATINIB'. The defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling an infringing product under the brand name 'LORBREXEN'.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
The court addressed several interlocutory applications. Most notably, it allowed the Plaintiff's application invoking Section 58 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to amend the claims of Patent IN No. 410993. Notice was served on the Controller and Defendants, setting a date for completion of pleadings.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation appealed an order rejecting its pre-grant opposition against a patent application filed by Tropilite Foods Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on whether the claimed invention was anticipated by prior art, specifically RPC's earlier expired patent (D1). The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that RPC must exhaust statutory remedies available under the Patents Act, 1970.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Meet Dilipkumar Patel And Anr.
The Delhi High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the 'KHADI ARK' and similar marks, maintaining the status quo during the ongoing suit. While the court upheld the protection of the plaintiff's trademark rights, discussions opened regarding a potential settlement, with the defendant offering an undertaking not to use the trademarks in the future if damages were waived. The matter was adjourned for further resolution.
Liberty Group Marketing Division v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Liberty Group Marketing Division's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal of their trademark application. The court set aside the initial refusal, which was based on a cited mark under Section 11 of the Trademarks Act. Crucially, the court restored the application to its original number but made it conditional: the applicant must first take steps to have the cited mark cancelled or rectified before the merits of their own application will be considered.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Italy srl
This order concerns a subsequent request by the patent proprietor (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to amend European patent EP 3 646 825 in revocation proceedings brought by Meril Italy srl. The defendant sought to replace its earlier rejected application (containing 84 auxiliary requests) with a streamlined request comprising one unconditional amendment and six auxiliary requests. The Court admitted the subsequent request, exercising its discretionary powers under Rule 30(2) RoP, and granted the claimant one month to file an additional defence.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
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.