IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 166 of 218 · 6,517 total
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB found the challenged claims of Athalonz unpatentable as obvious over prior art (Kim). The Board adopted a construction that allowed the petitioner (Under Armour) to satisfy claim limitations by measuring heights relative to the sole's bottom surface.
Under Armour, Inc. v.Athalonz, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all eight challenged claims unpatentable over the prior art reference Kim. The Board concluded that the synthetic rubber construction of Kim's golf shoe supports the existence of the claimed slopes, thereby establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that all seven claims of the patent were unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) based on the MSI-H Study Record, which was deemed prior art despite arguments regarding experimental use exceptions.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple claims of the '975 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated that the claimed methods and drug characteristics were anticipated (102) or rendered obvious (103) by prior art, primarily the MSI-H Study Record (MSR).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al. v.The Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB found all 28 challenged claims unpatentable in this IPR proceeding concerning oncology/immunotherapy. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record inherently anticipated or rendered obvious the claimed methods under both § 102 and § 103.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
The PTAB found that claims 12-21 of patent 8249932 were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining prior art references, specifically Amidon and Walsh, to teach the claimed targeted advertising system in situational networks.
Akums Drugs Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Ferring B.V.
The defendant filed an application seeking discovery of facts and particulars of the plaintiff's product to obtain a declaration of non-infringement under Section 105 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court addressed the dispute regarding whether merely furnishing 'full particulars in writing' is sufficient or if the actual product must be shared.
M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. v.Abdus Salam Khan
In a suit concerning alleged counterfeiting and infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of M/S Reflect Sculpt Private Ltd. The court allowed exemptions for urgent proceedings, including waiving advance service and pre-institution mediation, recognizing the need for swift action against counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to investigate the alleged infringements, allowing access to premises and financial records to gather evidence regarding the unauthorized use of unique designs and the 'GAURAV GUPTA' trademark.
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addresses a petition seeking the cancellation of two impugned copyright registrations related to a confectionary tablet label. The Petitioner argued that the Respondent failed to comply with mandatory notice requirements under the Copyright Rules, 2013. Conversely, the Respondent contended that the Petitioner was not an 'aggrieved person' and cited prior rejection orders as res judicata. The Court deferred final adjudication, requiring both parties to clarify the pending issues in the underlying suits.
M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Nowfloats Technologies Limited, allowing them to renew their trademark registration despite missing the statutory renewal deadline. The court found that the notice sent by the Registrar's office was never properly received by the petitioner due to incorrect addressing and procedural errors. This decision underscores the importance of proving proper service of official communications in IP matters.
Kubota Corporation v.Kaira Agros & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief to Kubota Corporation in its suit against Kaira Agros. Recognizing the threat posed by counterfeit products, the court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner. This commissioner is directed to search premises and seize packaging, stickers, and promotional material bearing infringing marks, while also documenting non-infringing machinery. The order paves the way for the formal registration of the suit.
GS1 India v.Deepak Traders & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of GS1 India against Deepak Traders & Ors. The dispute centers on the exclusive licensing and allocation of specific 13-digit GTIN barcodes (starting with '890') within India. The court found a prima facie case, noting that defendants were allegedly contravening the Terms of Use by allocating these unique identifiers to unauthorized entities, thereby disrupting the global GS1 identification system.
Mastery Logistics Systems, Inc. v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Mumbai
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition seeking to quash an earlier trademark registration granted by the Senior Examiner. The Petitioner argued that their submissions regarding opposition were ignored in the original decision. Recognizing the need for a thorough review, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Trademark Authority for fresh consideration, ensuring both parties' contentions are taken into account.
Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE and Tesla Germany GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP1612910. The defendants (Tesla entities) sought to have certain information in their Rejoinder, specifically projected sales results for a potential twelve-month enforcement period, classified as trade secrets with restricted access under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the application, restricting access to the claimant's legal representatives and three named persons employed at Broadcom Inc., replacing the earlier preliminary order of 11 March 2024.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court in Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_54/2023) involving European Patent EP1612910 held by Avago Technologies. The defendants (Tesla entities) sought a confidentiality order under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect projected sales result information contained in their rejoinder. The court granted the application, declaring the information strictly confidential and limiting access to the claimant's legal representatives and three named persons employed at Broadcom Inc.
Maya Appliances Private Limited v.Vibrant Concepts And Designs
Maya Appliances Private Limited filed suits alleging that Vibrant Concepts And Designs infringed upon its intellectual property rights, specifically concerning its patented technology and registered designs for frameless gas cooktops. The plaintiff claimed their products were world's first and featured unique design elements and a patentable internal piping system providing visual leak feedback. While the court acknowledged the claims of infringement, it dismissed the interim injunction applications, directing both parties to proceed to trial.
Google Llc v.The Controller Of Patents
Google LLC appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application 'Managing Instant Messaging Sessions on Multiple Devices'. The refusal was based on objections concerning lack of novelty, inventive step, and non-patentability under Section 3(k). Google argued that its amended claims introduced differentiating features over the cited prior art.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors.
Archian Foods Private Limited successfully secured an ex-parte interim injunction from the Delhi High Court against Shri Balaji Beverages & Ors. The court granted permission for a Local Commissioner to be appointed, enabling the seizure and confiscation of alleged counterfeit products bearing the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand. This decisive order allows the plaintiff to take immediate action against infringement across multiple IP rights, including trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design.
Retail Royalty Company And Anr v.Rohit Madan, Trading As Sita Outdoor Media
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff, Retail Royalty Company And Anr, to amend a previous court order. The amendment corrected an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the specific description of the 'Flying Eagle Device' trademark. This procedural step ensures that the legal proceedings accurately reflect the intellectual property rights being asserted.
M/S. P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S. Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
The Delhi High Court delivered a multi-faceted judgment addressing several IP disputes involving the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark. In one suit, the court decreed P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd.'s claim against Thukral Mechanical Works, while simultaneously ordering the cancellation of an older registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works in Class 7. Furthermore, the High Court set aside previous rejection orders for P.M. Diesels' trademark applications, allowing them to proceed toward registration.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Senko Advanced Components files a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny US Conec’s IPR petition on claims covering a duplex fiber‑optic connector, arguing the cited prior art fails to meet every claim limitation.
US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.
Petitioner US Conec Ltd. filed an IPR against Senko Advanced Components' patent 11061190; the patent owner submitted a preliminary response.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Court decision.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,665,685 B1. They jointly request the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,886,012 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
The PTAB terminated IPR2024-00382 after Datavant and Vigilytics reached a settlement, keeping the agreement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024‑00381 concerning patent 10,886,012. The PTAB granted the termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Datavant, Inc. et al. v.Vigilytics LLC
Datavant and Vigilytics settled their IPR dispute over a HIPAA‑related patent and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board was asked to end the case under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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.