IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 151 of 159 · 4,764 total
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
Apple Inc. challenged Carbyne Biometrics, LLC's patent (11475105) in a Petition, arguing that the claimed authentication and data backup methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The petitioner successfully secured institution at the PTAB, setting up an IPR proceeding to challenge the validity of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.LiTL LLC
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to modify Lane's hinge mechanism using Misawa's single-pivot design. The Board denied institution, finding that the proposed modification would destroy the intended functionality of the original invention.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom failed to convince the PTAB that Abbott's glucose monitoring patent was unpatentable based on obviousness grounds. The Board denied institution, finding insufficient evidence across multiple prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Carbyne Biometrics, LLC
The PTAB denied Apple's IPR challenge against Carbyne Biometrics, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of obviousness. The denial hinged on the Petitioner's inability to provide sufficient motivation to combine prior art references for authentication and credential management claims.
Tesla, Inc. v.Relink US LLC
Tesla's IPR challenge against Relink US LLC was denied by the PTAB, failing to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that key prior art references (Serban and Somani) did not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed features related to frequency-based power adjustment in grid-tied photovoltaics.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising its Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of a series of interconnected Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.). The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling provides clarity and specific directions across multiple patent disputes involving various parties, thereby concluding the appellate proceedings.
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute v.President And Fellows Of Harvard College
Kashmir Harvard Educational Institute challenged an arbitral award that directed the transfer of its domain name, <kashmirharvard.edu.in>, to President and Fellows of Harvard College. The dispute arose from a complaint filed under the INDRP alleging trademark infringement due to the confusing similarity between the domain name and the globally recognized 'HARVARD' mark. The Delhi High Court upheld the arbitral award, finding that the domain was identical to the trademark and caused confusion, thereby dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India Private Limited v.Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan
M/s.Vasanta Bhavan Hotels India initiated a civil suit against Pugal'n Vasanta Bhavan alleging trademark infringement and passing off regarding the use of similar names in the hotel and food business. The plaintiff asserted extensive goodwill, long-standing usage since 1974, and registered trademarks for 'VASANTA BHAVAN.' Although the defendant was set ex parte, the court proceeded based on the plaintiff's evidence to address claims of deceptive similarity and irreparable harm.
Aryan Educational Society v.C.D. Goyal Foundation
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by Aryan Educational Society against C.D. Goyal Foundation. The court allowed the plaintiff's request for an ad-interim injunction notice, noting that the defendant was allegedly using a similar mark ('The Aryan School') in Haryana despite the plaintiff holding a registered trademark. Furthermore, the court formally registered the suit and granted various procedural exemptions to facilitate the ongoing litigation.
Ajay Goyal v.Anil Verma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement case filed by Ajay Goyal against Anil Verma & Anr. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking an injunction, recognizing claims of deceptive similarity between 'SUFIYANA' and 'SUFIYAMA', alongside copying of trade dress and artistic work. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing products and materials, ensuring the continuation of the suit while addressing urgent concerns regarding trademark infringement.
V.R. Industries Private Ltd. v.Rajesh Kejriwal
The Delhi High Court upheld a lower court's interim injunction restraining V.R. Industries Private Ltd. from using the trademark 'GOLDEN GATE.' The respondent, Rajesh Kejriwal, holds registered trademarks for this name across various food and chemical classes. Despite the appellant claiming prior use and pending cancellation proceedings against the registration, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the Commercial Court's exercise of discretion regarding the injunction. This decision reinforces the weight given to existing trademark registrations in preventing potential infringement.
Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. v.Mohan Kumar Kotana
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiffs (Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr.) an interim permanent injunction in their suit against Mohan Kumar Kotana. The case involves alleged infringement of Tata's intellectual property rights related to its mineral water products, 'TATA COPPER+' and 'TATA WATER PLUS'. The court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant's premises, seize infringing goods and materials, and demand disclosure of sales records, significantly advancing the plaintiffs' claim for protection against IP misuse.
Taco Bell Corp. v.Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the ongoing trademark dispute between Taco Bell Corp. and Tamoghna Foods & Enterprises. The court granted certain procedural exemptions while directing parties to adhere strictly to commercial courts rules regarding document submission. Crucially, the main petition seeking rectification and removal of an existing mark (Registration No. 3628356) was advanced, with notice issued to the respondents to file their response within four weeks.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerning an infringement action brought by DexCom, Inc. against fourteen defendants, primarily comprising various Abbott entities and Newyu, Inc., regarding European Patent EP3831282. The order addresses service difficulties and aligns the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence across all defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur accepted the parties' agreed extension, setting the Statement of Defence deadline to 15 March 2024, with the starting point aligned to 15 December 2023.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Apple successfully challenged Immersion’s haptic‑feedback patent in an IPR, resulting in ten claims being found obvious over the Burrough prior‑art reference.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites Ltd seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the strong prior art reference “Leaning.” The petition requests reversal and institution of the review.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review. The settlement agreement and related documents were ordered confidential.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group filed a joint motion requesting the PTAB keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). The motion argues the agreement contains highly sensitive business information.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION et al. v.LiTL LLC
Microsoft and other petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB denial to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 9,880,715, alleging the Board misapplied obviousness standards and treated the case inconsistently with a related granted IPR.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group settled their IPR dispute over Patent 9,319,852, leading to a joint motion that terminated the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreements to be kept confidential.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and 10x Genomics jointly asked the PTAB to file their settlement agreement as business‑confidential information and keep it separate from the patent file. The request invokes 35 U.S.C. § 317 and related regulations to protect the settlement details.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Bruker Spatial Biology and 10x Genomics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,542,554, filing a joint motion to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not issued a final decision, and the parties seek to keep the settlement confidential.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Aylo Freesites’ request for a review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs, including the case involving DISH Technologies’ patent 10,469,554. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites filed Director Review requests challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for eight IPRs against DISH Technologies. The petitioner alleges the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and erred on material facts. The review seeks reversal of the denial.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Aylo Freesites seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies’ multi-bitrate streaming patent, arguing the Board misapplied General Plastic factors and ignored the merits of its petition. The petition relies on the strong prior art reference WO 02/49343 A1 (“Leaning”).
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions and STA Group have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,852 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc. et al.
Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.
Reolink Innovation Inc. et al. v.Throughtek Co., Ltd.
Reolink Innovation Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to challenge U.S. Patent No. 847842 on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition presented multiple combinations of prior art, including Lorex Guide/Kim and Throughtek-2012/Lorex Video, arguing the claimed P2P connection methods were predictable.
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.