IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 162 of 218 · 6,517 total
Saint Gobain Glass France v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Saint Gobain Glass France appealed against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201717045317 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the refusal erroneously applied the test of inventive step, failing to recognize the technical advancement and substantial differences in the claimed invention compared to prior art.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Ashok Leyland Limited appealed against an order dismissing its writ petition, which challenged the post-grant opposition proceedings against its patent IN387429. The dispute centered on whether the original Opposition Board had adequately considered expert evidence before submitting its recommendation to revoke the patent.
Bhimavaram Community Network Bcn v.M/S Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a commercial suit filed by the respondent. The core dispute involved allegations that the petitioner was infringing the respondent's copyright by removing/overshadowing the 'T-Series' Logo while broadcasting content. The court ultimately dismissed the petition, finding no patent perversity in the Trial Court's decision.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Www.Royalenfielddealerships.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended the existing ad interim injunction granted in favor of Eicher Motors Limited against various parties involved in trademark infringement. The court found that new imposter domain names were being used to deceive customers, collecting money under the guise of fake dealerships using the 'Royal Enfield' mark. Consequently, the court issued sweeping directions requiring Domain Name Registrars and financial institutions to lock and suspend the infringing domains and accounts.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Fmi Limited v.Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Fmi Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Fakhruddin Saifuddin Bharmal for using the deceptively similar trademark 'FREEMANS PROFESSIONAL' on protective hand gloves. Despite the defendant arguing that he was merely a reseller and not the manufacturer, the court found his admission of dealing in the infringing goods sufficient to uphold the infringement claim. The judgment underscores that even resellers can be held liable if they use marks confusingly similar to an established trademark.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the date of service of the appeal and statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings concerning EP 3 611 989. Due to a misconfiguration of the Case Management System (CMS) for service in appeal proceedings, Xiaomi's representative was unaware that service had occurred on March 13, 2024. The court clarified that, in the interest of due process and legal certainty, the date of service was deemed to be April 3, 2024, when Xiaomi's representative accessed the CMS and voluntarily accepted service.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1 concerning an avalanche victim search device (LVS), sought provisional measures against Mammut Sports Group regarding the 'Barryvox S2' device. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf maintained the preliminary injunction of December 11, 2023, ordered the respondents to provisionally reimburse costs of EUR 33,375.70, and rejected the respondents' counter-application for provisional cost reimbursement of EUR 19,858.40.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the decisions denying institution of four IPRs targeting Secure Wi‑Fi patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024‑01368, leaving the earlier denial of institution in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied retroactively after the Vidal memo was rescinded. The petition argues due‑process violations and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors. Samsung seeks to submit a Sotera stipulation and have the institution decision vacated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review request to overturn a PTAB institution denial that relied on a rescinded Vidal memo. The petitioner contends lack of notice of retroactive effect and arbitrary weighting of Fintiv factors, seeking to submit a Sotera stipulation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR on the ‘384 Wi‑Fi patent. The challenger contends the retroactive rescission of the Vidal memo and the Board’s Fintiv factor analysis violated due process.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defends the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director Review, arguing the Board’s discretionary analysis of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2024-01366, leaving the original denial in place. The order applies to four related IPRs involving Secure Wi‑Fi patents.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs, including IPR2024‑01367 covering Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes in place.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung Electronics filed Director Review requests for four IPRs challenging Secure Wi‑Fi’s U.S. Patent No. 9,717,005. The PTAB Director instructed Secure Wi‑Fi to submit a brief response within five business days, prohibiting new evidence. The review decision is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has requested Director Review of four IPRs involving Secure Wi‑Fi’s patent. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to five pages and barred new evidence. The Director’s decision on the review is pending.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn a PTAB discretionary denial that applied the rescinded Vidal memo retroactively. The petitioner alleges abuse of discretion and due‑process violations, arguing the Board’s weighting of Fintiv factors was arbitrary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Secure Wi‑Fi LLC defended the PTAB’s denial of institution against Samsung’s request for Director review, arguing the Board’s use of Fintiv factors was proper and the petitioner’s new arguments untimely. The Board’s decision stands.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’384 patent covering fake MAC address techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Yun, Satish and Jalfon. No discretionary denial is requested.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate claims 10‑28 of Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent. The challenger relies on a combination of Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun (and Kholaif for claims 24‑28) to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Samsung also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given parallel district‑court litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung petitions an IPR to invalidate 17 claims of Secure Wi‑Fi’s 9,717,005 Wi‑Fi connection patent, asserting obviousness over Vardi, IEEE 802.11, Orava and Yun.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review seeking to invalidate Secure Wi‑Fi’s ’552 patent covering Wi‑Fi connection methods. The petition argues that claims 1‑9 are obvious over Vardi, the IEEE 802.11 standard, Orava and Yun, and opposes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Wi-Fi LLC
Samsung's IPR petition against Secure Wi-Fi LLC was denied by the PTAB. The Board determined that the proximity to a parallel district court trial date weighed heavily in favor of discretionary denial under Fintiv factors.
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.