IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 149 of 159 · 4,764 total
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB has issued a Director Review request in IPR2024-00839, directing the petitioner, Giesecke+Devrient, to file a concise response within five business days. No new evidence is permitted, and the Director will decide on the review request.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
smaXtec Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of ST Reproductive Technologies' '515 Patent, which covers livestock tracking and management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by various prior art references related to RFID sensor data collection.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB has instituted an IPR petition challenging claims of the '206 Patent related to livestock management systems. The petitioner asserts that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references covering RFID and advanced data analysis in herd health detection.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd. has filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review challenging Unstoppable Domains Inc.'s patent covering Domain Name Resolution (ENS) methods. The petitioner argues that the core claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining multiple prior art references related to blockchain functionality.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient et al. successfully petitioned to challenge Lumenco's patent on Optically Variable Devices (OVDs) for document security. The PTAB found the grounds of obviousness compelling, leading to institution of the IPR proceedings.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH filed a petition challenging the validity of Lumenco's micro-mirror array patent under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious, citing combinations of prior art references like Fuhse262 and Jordan. This initial filing sets the stage for a detailed examination of inventive step in optical device design.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR challenge against a patent covering animal management systems using RFID technology. The Petitioner successfully argued that prior art references, including Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao, provided sufficient motivation to combine elements of the challenged claims.
ENS Labs Ltd. v.Unstoppable Domains Inc.
ENS Labs Ltd.'s IPR challenge against Unstoppable Domains Inc. was denied by the PTAB, primarily because the petitioner failed to prove that key prior art documentation qualified as publicly accessible under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The Board found the evidence of public accessibility insufficient to support the obviousness grounds asserted across multiple claims.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
Exotec Product France SAS and co-petitioner successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Opex Corporation's patent, arguing that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on combining prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou in the field of Automated Warehouse Robotics.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied the Petitioner's request for rehearing regarding an institution decision. The Board upheld its claim construction of a micro-mirror array patent, finding that each set of mirrors must have a differing cone angle offset.
Giesecke+Devrient GmbH et al. v.Lumenco, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging Lumenco's anti-counterfeiting patent (10317691), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all challenged claims (1-4, 15-25) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The Board relied heavily on the prior art reference Trevarthen to establish anticipation and obviousness in various combinations.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims of patent 9844206 were unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily citing Trevarthen and Laitinen/Buchanan/Liao. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction for 'implanted in an animal,' meaning implanted within the animal.
Exotec Product France SAS et al. v.Opex Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art references Raizer and Hangzhou. The Board determined that an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of these references to solve known industry problems like congestion and inefficiency in automated material handling systems.
The Regents Of The University Of California v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
The Regents of the University of California appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents regarding their patent application for 'Blockade of Inflammatory Proteases with Theta Defensins'. The rejection primarily hinged on objections related to novelty and inventive step, compounded by concerns over the permissibility of claim amendments under Section 59(1) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the amendments served only as explanations or incorporated facts already disclosed, thereby allowing the application to be remanded for fresh examination.
Arthrogen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Anr
Arthrogen Gmbh appealed the rejection of its Indian patent application for a method involving gold particle enrichment of blood serum. The Patent Office had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) and 3(j) of the Patents Act, arguing it constituted a 'method of treatment.' Arthrogen successfully argued that the claims were directed towards a novel 'method of producing' a substance, not a direct method of treating humans. Consequently, the Delhi High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Equitas Small Finance Bank Limited v.3Sk Innovations Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner invoked Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, to seek the revocation of Indian Patent 307627. The court granted exemption and issued notice to all respondents, directing them to file their replies within specified timelines.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited And Anr. v.Diamond Autos
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of 'HERO' trademarks, Hero Investcorp Private Limited sought various interim reliefs against Diamond Autos. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service due to urgency. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises in Ludhiana to verify the alleged counterfeit products, setting the stage for further proceedings on the injunction application.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd v.Azizur Rahaman And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed Hindustan Unilever Ltd's petition to combine its claims for passing off with those for trademark and copyright infringement. This strategic move aims to streamline litigation by consolidating multiple causes of action into a single proceeding. Consequently, the court expanded the existing ad-interim injunction, reinforcing the restraint on defendants from manufacturing or trading goods that deceptively resemble HUL's distinctive brands like Lakme and its associated artistic works.
P.Sathish Kumar v.Christu Krupa Broadcasting Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by P.Sathish Kumar seeking rectification of a trademark entry (No. 4074848 in Class 3). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear before the court on two successive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the Transfer Original Petition for default.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Reckitt And Colman Overseas Hygiene Home Limited & Anr.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited appealed the rejection of its application to rectify the trademark 'HARPIC DRAINXPERT'. The core dispute revolves around whether Reckitt & Colman's use of a similar mark, specifically 'DRAIN XPERT POWDER', constitutes infringement or grounds for rectification. The appellant argues that the slight variation in spelling and presentation is deceitful and confusingly similar to their registered trademark. The court has listed the matter for further hearing to consider these complex arguments regarding similarity and deceptive intent.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Alkem Laboratories Ltd. & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to initiate trademark rectification proceedings against Alkem Laboratories. The core issue was challenging the validity of the Defendant's registered mark, ALSITA, in Class 5. The court accepted notice and scheduled the matter for further hearing, allowing the parties time to file their respective responses.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. v.Dhruvil Damajibhai Zadafiya As D D Fashion & Anr.
Nutraceutical Wellness Inc. initiated proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of a trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner argued that their internationally registered and long-standing wordmark, 'NUTRAFOL,' relates to over-the-counter hair growth products. The court accepted the petition and directed the issuance of notice to the respondents, setting the stage for further litigation regarding the validity and use of the mark.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.Shubhom Juneja
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against Shubhom Juneja regarding alleged trademark infringement and passing off of whisky. The court found a prima facie case based on the near-identical nature of the trade dresses and packaging used for 'Royal Green' and 'Royal Queen' whiskies, coupled with phonetic similarity between the names. This order temporarily restricts the defendant from introducing further products in the confusing manner.
Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals & Anr. v.Yashoda Hospital And Research Center Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Yashoda Super Specialty Hospitals challenging a Single Judge's order that had set aside a trademark rectification order. The core dispute centered on whether the respondent received proper notice of the rectification proceedings before its trademark was removed from the register. The court ultimately found no error in setting aside the initial review petition, emphasizing that ambiguity regarding service should benefit the party seeking relief.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco’s petition argues that the Board correctly interpreted the term “memory circuit” to include multiple components, rejecting Lionra’s claim of procedural error. The Director Review Request is urged to be denied.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
The USPTO Director denied Cisco's request for review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00734, finding the Board's claim‑construction error harmless. The patent owned by Lionra Technologies remains in force.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems challenges Lionra Technologies' patent (7623518) in an IPR, asserting that multiple claims are obvious over combinations of prior art. The petitioner focuses on network access control list (ACL) improvements and dynamic packet handling techniques using references like Gai, Yip, Kwan, and Georgiou.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Lionra Technologies Limited
Cisco Systems, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge Lionra Technologies Limited's patent (7623518) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The Board found reasonable likelihood of success for Cisco regarding several claims related to dynamic access control lists and network security.
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.