IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 157 of 159 · 4,764 total
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Serendia, LLC and Jeisys Medical Inc. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Ilooda and Serendia have filed a joint motion to terminate Ilooda’s participation in an IPR over U.S. Patent 10,869,812, citing a settlement of their dispute. The Board has not yet ruled on institution, and the parties also request the settlement be kept confidential.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple’s IPR against THL Holding’s patent 11,350,246 concluded with an adverse judgment after the patent owner disclaimed all challenged claims. The Board entered judgment against claims 20‑27 and terminated the proceeding.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent (9430042) in an IPR petition, asserting grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argued that the claimed haptic feedback system was rendered invalid by combinations of prior art references like Ichinose/Levin and Rosenberg-I/Goldenberg.
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al. v.CLX Engineering
Daifuku Co., Ltd. filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of CLX Engineering's patent (11386602) related to baggage tracking and visualization systems. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, citing combinations of prior art references like Cavada, Orito, Sommer, and Schmirler.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
Apple challenges THL Holding Company's patent on location and tracking systems via an IPR petition. The petitioner asserts that the claimed features are obvious combinations of prior art elements from mobile communication devices and Bluetooth technology. This action is part of ongoing litigation between the parties in District Court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution in this IPR petition filed by Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation, covering claims related to Haptic Feedback/Tactile Sensing. The Board found that the prior art references (Komata, Tsuji, Rosenberg) sufficiently disclosed or suggested the challenged limitations under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This decision moves the case toward trial, affirming the Petitioner's reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB regarding claims of Immersion Corporation's vibrotactile feedback patent (9430042). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on anticipation and obviousness grounds. This decision moves the dispute toward trial in district court.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 7 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,336,260 unpatentable. The decision hinged on the Petitioner's successful anticipation challenge over the prior art reference Komata.
Apple, Inc. v.THL Holding Company, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 11-19 unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the combination of Kalliola and other references taught or suggested multiple limitations, particularly regarding UWB DoA and location tracking. This decision significantly weakens the patent's validity in the device location/ranging space.
Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v.Devender Kumar
GSP Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit alleging infringement of its Suit Patent (IN384184) concerning a liquid composition of Pendimethalin and Metribuzin. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant launched an imitation product named 'Pendamic' which matched the claims of the patent. Based on the prima facie case established, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Anr. v.Chetan Padilya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an existing injunction protecting Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd's trademark rights against specific infringing content published by the defendant. Crucially, the court clarified that this injunction is not a 'gag order.' While the defendant must refrain from publishing articles identical or similar to the impugned material and avoid derogatory remarks, they retain the right to engage in lawful discourse comparing plant-based beverages with dairy milk products.
Living Seed Technologies Llp. v.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Living Seed Technologies LLP against Karthikeya Crop Technologies regarding Trade Mark Application No. 4972011. The petitioner sought an expedited resolution to an ongoing opposition petition, citing prior injunctions obtained in civil courts concerning passing off. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of the interlocutory petition promptly and further mandated that no certificate of registration be issued until the matter is resolved.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
1 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 January 2024 concerning an application for suspensive effect DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS 1. Meril GmbH Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119 Bonn, Germany 2. Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. M1-M2, Meril Park, Su
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Kamal Electricals And Sanitary
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a suit against Kamal Electricals and Sanitary regarding trademark infringement. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai, while the defendants were operating outside the court's jurisdiction in Telangana. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
M/S SNS PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED v.Mohammed Naim
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S SNS Products Private Limited against Mohammed Naim. The plaintiff, a long-standing manufacturer of spices under the 'SHAN-E-DELHI' brand, sought protection against the defendant who was using substantially similar packaging and the mark 'Proud-ek-Minar'. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established their case for infringement, noting the similarity in trade dress and the defendant's prior purchase of the plaintiff's products. Consequently, the defendant is temporarily restrained from using the infringing materials and must disclose all existing inventory.
Khadi And Village Industries Commission v.Mr Ashish Singh And Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of the Khadi And Village Industries Commission against Mr. Ashish Singh and others. The Plaintiff, a statutory body protecting the 'KHADI' mark, alleged that Defendants were deceptively using similar marks like 'KHADI ORGANIC' on various products and websites to exploit public goodwill, particularly around religious events. The Court found a prima facie case for infringement and passed orders restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling goods under infringing marks and mandating the suspension of the associated domain name.
Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sangeeta Jaiswal
The Madras High Court closed two Original Petitions filed by Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd against Sangeeta Jaiswal regarding the rectification/cancellation of registered trademarks (Nos. 3207838 and 3207840). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the petitioner's agreement that the respondent would proceed with separate applications to cancel the marks. The Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the cancellation process.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2024-01-17) under reference UPC-001638, Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge appeared in dispute with Arkyne Technologies S.L. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents, which rejected a second divisional application (grandchild application) because its claims were deemed to conflict with those in the original grandparent application. The appellant argued that filing the divisional application was necessitated by objections raised by the Controller. The High Court held that since the filing was a consequence of an objection, the division should be assessed on its own merits.
Amir Biri Factory & Ors. v.Mohd. Aslam
The Calcutta High Court vacated an injunction previously granted to Amir Biri Factory in favor of Mohd. Aslam. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, specifically regarding restrictions on their trademark's use and geographical limitations (West Bengal only). Furthermore, the defendant successfully argued they were a prior user operating outside West Bengal, challenging the basis of the injunction. This decision significantly weakens the plaintiff's ability to enforce their registered mark against the defendant.
Sh. Jaininder Jain And Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the ongoing dispute concerning the 'KANGARO' trademark. Addressing requests for comprehensive information, the court directed the Plaintiffs to first compile a list of all trademark oppositions they have filed against Defendants. Subsequently, the Defendants were mandated to provide certificates and applications for all relevant foreign trademark registrations not contested by the Plaintiffs. This order aims to ensure full transparency regarding global IP rights related to the brand.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Daryaganj Hospitality Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a passing off suit concerning the 'Moti Mahal' trademark. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were misleading the public by associating their restaurants with the Plaintiffs' famous brand, citing misuse of predecessor photographs and marks. While the Defendants vehemently disputed the claims, they offered a conciliatory gesture, committing to remove the disputed photograph from their website without conceding liability. The court proceeded to issue notices for an interim injunction while setting timelines for written statements and framing issues.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Patent Office's order rejecting its application titled "DISCOVERY OF SECURE NETWORK ENCLAVES". The rejection was based on grounds related to Sections 2(l)(j) and Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court released the matter from part-heard status and listed it for further hearing.
Sri Amaresh Banerjee v.The State of West Bengal & Ors.
The petitioner, a manufacturer of coaltar under the trade name 'Anchor', challenged the rejection of his application for reinvestigation before the Calcutta High Court. The dispute involved alleged infringement of the petitioner's registered trademark and copyright by the opposite party no. 1. The court ultimately dismissed the revision petition, finding that the investigation was conducted fairly and that the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process since a civil suit on the same matter was already pending.
Temple University Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education v.The Controller Of Patents
Temple University Of The Commonwealth appealed against the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its patent application No. 201617007895. The court initially condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the main appeal for further hearing.
Drs Educational Society & Ors. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Drs Educational Society challenging the registration of the 'DRS' trademark. The petitioners argued that the registration was erroneous because the applicant had previously withdrawn their application, but the Registrar failed to act on this withdrawal. However, the court held that administrative lapses do not invalidate an accrued statutory right. It emphasized that disputes over trademark validity must be pursued through specific remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, rather than via a writ petition.
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.