IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 149 of 218 · 6,517 total
M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar v.G.Saravanan
The Madras High Court closed an Original Petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration after both parties entered into a joint compromise memo. The petitioner, M/s.R.K.Gnapathi Chettiar, successfully secured commitments from G.Saravanan to cease using the disputed mark and take steps within 30 days to cancel Registration No. 3814752 in Class 29. This settlement provides a definitive resolution to the trademark dispute.
Richi Mathew v.Muthoot Finance Ltd; The Trademark Registry
The Madras High Court addressed two Original Petitions concerning the rectification and expungement of specific trademarks registered under Trademark Nos. 1880132 and 1248199 in Class 36. However, before any substantive ruling could be made on the merits of the trademark entries, the petitioner filed an endorsement stating that they no longer wished to pursue these petitions. Consequently, the Court dismissed both Original Petitions as withdrawn.
The Procter & Gamble Company v.Rspl Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by The Procter & Gamble Company against Rspl Limited, directing the removal of the trade mark 'VINGS'. The court found that 'VINGS' was phonetically and identically similar to the petitioner's prior registered trademark 'WINGS', which covered identical goods (sanitary pads). Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of use for their mark during the application process. While the immediate rectification is granted, the broader issue regarding Rspl's descriptive use of 'with wings' remains open and will be decided in a separate suit.
Anuj Bindal M/S Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Tarsem Chand M/S R.D Traders
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills, leading to the cancellation of a nearly identical trademark registration held by R.D Traders. The court found that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the animal feed market. Crucially, the court determined that while the Petitioner's prior use was not perfectly documented, the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence supporting their claimed date of first use, thus invalidating the registration under Section 9(2)(a) and on grounds of fraudulent representation.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor SASU, Supponor España SL, Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether AIM Sport Development AG's appeal against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Helsinki) was timely. The Court of First Instance had dismissed AIM's infringement and provisional measures actions concerning EP 3 295 663 for lack of competence due to an opt-out, and incorrectly stated a two-month appeal period applied. The Court of Appeal held that under Rule 224.1(b) RoP, the correct appeal period for orders under Article 62 UPCA was 15 days, but due to the ambiguity in the rules and the misleading information provided by the Court of First Instance, AIM's appeal was admissible under the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR over U.S. Patent 10,478,030. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under statutory confidentiality rules.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,362,480 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and lack of a preliminary response as reasons for dismissal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered into a settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review covering DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring patent (U.S. 10,709,364). The Board has not yet decided the merits, satisfying the statutory requirements for termination under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung challenges Maxell’s touch‑screen registration patent, defending the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness findings while urging the Director to deny the review request as untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against its touchscreen‑gesture patent after Samsung’s challenge. The owner contends the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework under §325(d), improperly shifting burdens and ignoring prior reexamination findings.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks director review of a PTAB final written decision that found all challenged claims of its fingerprint‑registration patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board’s claim construction and obviousness analysis are erroneous and that the IPR should never have been instituted under §325(d).
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the cited prior art was already considered in reexamination and that no material examiner error exists. The response also cites discretionary denial factors under §§ 314(a) and 325(d) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00233 concerning Patent 8,886,954. The Board found no merit to overturn the prior ruling.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory and regulatory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Director Review request seeking to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s fingerprint‑recognition patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary denial standards.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google and SmartWatch Mobile Concepts settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,362,480, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement agreement was ordered kept confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,478,030 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to end the proceeding.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,709,364 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before any merits were decided. The settlement agreement was also designated as confidential business information.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-00828 was denied by the USPTO, leaving the original institution ruling in place.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging Omachron Intellectual Property Inc.'s '030 Patent, asserting that the claims are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that the patent merely combines well-known configurations of standard vacuum cleaner components using prior art references like Butler, Peter/Neroni, and Lehmann.
Google LLC v.SMARTWATCH MOBILE CONCEPTS, LLC,
Google LLC has filed an opening petition challenging nine claims of a wearable device patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge asserts that key features, including GPS and biometric authentication, were already known in prior art by 2015.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed a Petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 held by Proxense, LLC. The core argument is that the patent's claims are obvious over various prior art references, including Burger and Robinson.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care challenges DexCom's CGM patent (10709364) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over U.S. Patent No. 6,275,717 ('Gross'). The petitioner argues Gross discloses the core concept of using electrochemical sensors and calibration methods to correct for sensor sensitivity differences.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Samsung filed an IPR petition against Maxell's patent covering touchscreen/fingerprint authentication technology, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art references (Rogers, Rosenberg, Miyazawa, Rekimoto) render the challenged claims unpatentable.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed a Petition to institute IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding 3D NAND Flash Memory claims, arguing the patents are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition targets multiple claims based on combinations of prior art references (Seo, Choi, Nam, Izumi).
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR challenging 16 claims of Proxense, LLC's patent related to biometric authentication for financial transactions. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Burger and Robinson. This marks a key procedural step in the ongoing dispute between the parties.
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.