IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 155 of 159 · 4,764 total
Motorola Solutions, Inc. v.STA Group, LLC
Motorola Solutions successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to trial on all challenged claims of STA Group's patent (8145249). The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) against multiple prior art references. This decision moves the dispute toward full trial, significantly advancing Motorola's position.
Vidli Restaurants Limited v.Alok Sovind Chandewar
Vidli Restaurants Limited filed a Commercial Arbitration Application seeking dispute resolution related to its Franchise Agreement with Alok Sovind Chandewar. The core of the dispute involved Vidli alleging that the Respondent was using a deceptively similar mark, constituting trademark infringement post-termination of the agreement. However, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that since Vidli was merely a licensee and not the owner of the trademarks, it lacked the legal standing to initiate arbitration over the alleged infringement.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed an impugned order dated February 19, 2019, passed by the Controller of Patents which denied its application (No. 10246/DELNP/2012). The appellant argued that the denial was based on new grounds (lack of enablement) and non-speaking reasons, violating natural justice.
Regenesance B.V. v.Union of India
Regenesance B.V. challenged the Patent Office's order that deemed its patent application abandoned because it failed to reply to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the timeline should not be treated as inflexible, especially when procedural delays are common in the patent office process. The Madras High Court agreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must promote and preserve scientific temper, allowing for a reasonable view of the matter.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.
M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath v.M/s.Hotel Swagath, Dhanturi Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath against M/s.Hotel Swagath and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought to remove or cancel the trademark 'HOTEL SWAGATH' (Device) registered in Class-43. The court noted that the proprietors of the petitioner hotel had passed away, leading to the withdrawal of a related infringement suit by the first respondent. Consequently, the Transfer Original Petition was dismissed as abated, though it can be revived by legal heirs.
Sew-Eurodrive Gmbh & Co. Kg v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Sew-Eurodrive, setting aside the Trademark Registry's order that declared their marks 'SEW' and 'SEW-EURODRIVE' abandoned. The court criticized the Registry for failing to provide timely alerts regarding procedural changes posted only on its website, noting that applicants cannot be expected to monitor the site 24/7. Consequently, the applications were restored to the file of the Trademarks Registry to proceed based on their merits.
M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty v.Sivakumar G.Nalli
The Madras High Court addressed a civil suit filed by M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Sivakumar G.Nalli and others regarding the 'Nalli' brand. Despite extensive evidence presented by the plaintiff, including proof of long-standing reputation and registration, the court dismissed the core prayers seeking permanent injunctions, rendition of accounts, and damages. The judgment highlights the high burden required for a successful infringement claim in civil court.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Scales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Scales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petition sought the removal and expungement of two trademark registrations ('Tintometer') based on grounds including wrongful registration and non-use. However, due to the petitioner's counsel failing to provide instructions, the court dismissed the entire petition for default.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Chevron and Scout filed a joint motion to stay Pilot's infringement suit while the PTAB reviews the disputed patent in IPR2024-00385. The district court granted the stay, administratively closing the case pending the PTAB's final written decision.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property, resulting in a joint motion that terminated the IPR on patent 8,505,332. The Board granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
Scout Energy Management and Chevron settled with Pilot Intellectual Property over a CO₂‑capture oil‑recovery patent, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch defends its IPv6 transition patent against Juniper’s IPR challenge, arguing the prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that key references are not prior art.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response opposes Juniper’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,451,844, arguing that the cited prior art does not disclose separate IPv4/IPv6 domains and that Li‑2 is not prior art. The owner seeks denial of institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper’s IPR challenge to Monarch’s IPv4/IPv6 inter‑domain routing patent is countered with a sur‑reply asserting that the cited prior art is either not publicly available or teaches different solutions, and that new arguments are procedurally improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google have filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of a second IPR covering all 30 claims of Headwater’s ’733 patent. They argue the denial was improper and that the Patent Owner’s stipulation fails to protect their products from future litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung and Google's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00341 concerning patent 8,406,733.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google petitioned for a Director Review of the PTAB's denial to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent. The Board denied the request, leaving the institution denial in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google filed a second IPR petition challenging all claims of Headwater Research's patent, but the USPTO denied institution based on a post‑filing PO stipulation. The petitioners request Director review, arguing the denial misapplies § 314(a) and threatens broader litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request in IPR2024-00341, instructing Samsung and Headwater Research to file a concise, evidence‑free response within five business days. No new evidence may be introduced and briefing is limited to 15 pages.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenges Monarch Networking Solutions' '844 patent, arguing that the claimed IPv4/IPv6 transition technology is obvious. The petition asserts that prior art references Li and Li-2 combine to teach the method of constructing an IPv6 address using a port number for multiplexing.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT, LLC et al. v.Pilot Intellectual Property, LLC et al.
SCOUT ENERGY MANAGEMENT challenges Pilot Intellectual Property's patent claims in an IPR, arguing the methods for recovering natural gas liquids are obvious. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of prior art references like Aycaguer and Soldati to demonstrate unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung Electronics challenged Headwater Research's patent (8406733) in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art combinations. The challenger asserts that combining teachings from Houghton and Ogawa, or Houghton-Ogawa with Hwang, renders the claimed device provisioning and secure communication methods predictable.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Monarch Networking Solutions' patent 8451844, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art related to IPv6 transition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google's attempt to challenge Headwater Research's patent (8406733) was denied by the PTAB due to a parallel IPR proceeding already being active.
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.