IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 147 of 159 · 4,764 total
Techpolymers Industria E Comercio Ltda v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application by the Controller, which cited lack of inventive step and objected to an amendment under Section 59. The High Court found that the Controller failed to consider the explanations regarding prior art and misinterpreted the substance of the amended claim. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and remanded for fresh consideration.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents and Designs
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed the refusal by The Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its invention concerning a pull starter mechanism for a scooter. The rejection was based on a lack of inventive steps. The High Court allowed the appeal, allowing the appellant to consider amended claims, and remanded the matter to another Patent Controller.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Mansoor Ahamed v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Mansoor Ahamed's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register his trademark 'ATTITUDE' under Class 25. The court found that the appellant's mark was inherently distinctive, possessed a unique graphical representation, and had established international recognition and market presence. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for fresh consideration in light of the High Court's observations.
Purshotam Keshwani & Ors. v.Nishant Mitrasen Mahimtura & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application regarding alleged non-compliance with a prior injunction restraining the use of the trademark 'LIBAS'. The court clarified that while the defendants were previously granted a limited, temporary exception allowing them to use a specific logo format ('RIYAZ GANGJI' in bold with 'LIBAS' underneath), this pro tem arrangement did not supersede the original comprehensive injunction. The court directed the parties to engage in settlement talks regarding any alleged violations of the standalone mark 'LIBAS', setting a date for compliance.
Bayona Spa v.Varun Exports & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.
M/s.D.R.Raanka Bros v.Mr.Sumti A.Challani & M/s.Challani Ranka Jewellery
The Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by M/s. D.R. Raanka Bros seeking rectification of registered trademarks held by Mr. Sumti A. Challani and M/s. Challani Ranka Jewellery. The court found a 'striking similarity' between the petitioner's established marks (D.R./D.R.Raanka Bros) and the respondent's newly registered marks (C.R.J., C.R.), which were obtained after 2003. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify the register within three weeks.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 11,910,984 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review disputes, leading the PTAB to terminate four IPRs involving Dyson patents. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of its display‑panel patent claims after the Board relied on a rescinded Guidance Memo. The owner argues the Board should have applied a full Fintiv analysis given the parallel district‑court trial schedule.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display contests Pictiva’s request for Director Review, asserting the PTAB correctly found the ’223 patent claims obvious over the Ma reference. The petitioner maintains no inconsistency with district‑court findings and seeks denial of the review.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB notified Samsung Display and Pictiva that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-01094 concerning patent 8,558,223. The petitioner may submit a concise response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Nokia's patent covering video encoding techniques. The petitioner asserts the Board misinterpreted claim language and ignored obviousness evidence from the Koga reference.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute, filing a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00924, which rendered the Director Review request for IPR2024-00920 moot.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,077,991 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991 and have jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and argues that termination serves public policy and resource efficiency.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their dispute over patent 8,077,991, leading the USPTO to dismiss the Director Review request as moot and return the case to the Board.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB denied institution of Amazon’s IPR against Nokia’s wireless patent and dismissed the parties’ joint motion to terminate as moot. The Board granted in part a request to keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,558,223 held by Pictiva Displays International Ltd. The challenge asserts that the patent claims relating to organic electronic components are obvious over prior art references Werner and Ma. This action targets core technology in the high-value Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) market.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Molecular Loop Biosciences' patents covering dual-indexing in Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS). The petitioner argued the claims were anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Gloor and Parameswaran. The PTAB decided to institute the IPR because the Examiner failed to consider relevant prior art during prosecution.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon filed an IPR challenging Nokia Technologies Oy's patents related to hybrid video coding and prediction error encoding. The petition argues that the challenged claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references, specifically Koga, Lin, and Narroschke. Petitioners assert these combinations teach predictable improvements in codec implementation.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully petitioned to invalidate Omachron's patent (11910984) covering surface cleaning apparatus. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, including obviousness based on Dimbylow and Howes.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. successfully had its IPR petition instituted against Pictiva Displays International Limited regarding OLED technology claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on Claim 1 based on obviousness over prior art 'Ma'.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
Illumina successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Molecular Loop Biosciences regarding next-generation sequencing technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over Parameswaran and Gloor, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
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.