IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 182 of 218 · 6,517 total
Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Natco Pharma Limited
This order addresses an application seeking five corrections to a previous judgment dated March 1, 2024. The plaintiffs sought corrections primarily regarding the timeline of Natco's revocation filing relative to Kudos' infringement suit, and technical errors in referencing patent numbers and claim descriptions.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
The plaintiffs filed a suit for patent infringement regarding Sitagliptin (Patent No. 209816). An ex-parte ad interim injunction was previously granted restraining the defendants from dealing in infringing products. The court noted that the patent has since lapsed, making the injunction infructuous, but allowed the plaintiffs to seek relief of costs and damages.
Frances Shenker v.M/S Allanasons Private Limited
In a dispute over the 'STEAKHOUSE' mark, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking to challenge the plaintiff's registered trademark. The court found prima facie merit in the defendant's contention that the descriptive word might be invalid under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the court framed the issue regarding the validity and rectification of the mark and granted the defendant three months to file a formal rectification petition.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v.Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement between Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited (Plaintiff) and Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Defendant). While the Plaintiff presented extensive evidence of market presence, sales, and potential consumer confusion regarding the marks 'FOREST ESSENTIALS' and 'BABY FOREST', the court ultimately dismissed the applications seeking an injunction against the use of the latter. The judgment emphasized the need for a composite assessment, referencing the established 'Pianotist test,' to determine likelihood of confusion.
Martin Lionel v.BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation
An applicant, Martin Lionel, sought public access under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure to various Registry documents and communications related to a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris seat) rejected the application, holding that Rule 262(1)(b) applies only to written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties, not to Registry communications or orders issued by the Court.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T filed a Director Review Request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against ASUS. The petition cites improper weighting of Fintiv factors and failure to consider prior art.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology jointly moved to end IPR 2024‑00963 and asked the PTAB to keep their final settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
AT&T and other telecom carriers petition the PTAB Director to review a denied institution of an IPR challenging ASUS’s 5G‑related patent. They argue the panel misread prior art, ignored expert testimony, and abused discretion under § 314(a). The petition seeks reversal and institution of the review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,701,321 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup and Hanshow Technology entered a settlement that led to the termination of two inter partes review proceedings (IPR2024-00857 and IPR2024-00963). The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and partially protected the settlement documents as confidential.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB Director denied the petitioners’ request for review of the institution decisions in two IPRs involving ASUS patents. The denial leaves the original institution denials in place.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Petitioners, including AT&T and Verizon, successfully petitioned to challenge 19 claims of Asustek Computer Inc.'s patent regarding physical layer procedures for CORESET management. The PTAB found compelling merits based on multiple grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). This institution sets the stage for a detailed technical battle over wireless standards implementation.
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
VusionGroup SA initiated an Inter Partes Review challenging the validity of Hanshow Technology's '321 patent based on obviousness. The Petitioner asserts that multiple combinations of prior art references render all 21 claims unpatentable in the field of video surveillance and analytics.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition, finding that the preliminary record did not present a compelling challenge to the patent's validity despite multiple grounds of obviousness. The Board relied on a holistic review of the Fintiv factors, ultimately favoring discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
VusionGroup SA et al. v.Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.
The PTAB institution decision was granted for the petitioner VusionGroup SA against Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd.'s patent, covering object detection and video surveillance systems. The Board found that the prior art reference Bedros disclosed or suggested all limitations of Claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This decision allows the petitioner to proceed with invalidity challenges based on obviousness and anticipation grounds.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an anti-PDGFR alpha antibody, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a discovery of a naturally existing molecule. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and recombinant technology involving transgenic mice, making it non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Monsnto Technology Llc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
Monsnto Technology Llc appealed the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'Chloroplast Transit Peptides'. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on incomplete consideration of claims and citation of subsequent prior art. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC v.Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks
Global Life Sciences Solutions USA LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application concerning a Gamma Sterilizable RFID system. The invention utilizes a ferro-electric random access memory (FRAM) chip with redundant information storage to ensure data integrity when exposed to high-intensity gamma radiation used in sterilization processes. The Madras High Court examined whether this combination was obvious based on existing prior art, particularly regarding redundancy techniques. Ultimately, the court found that the nature and purpose of the claimed redundancy were fundamentally different from those disclosed in the cited prior art, thereby satisfying the inventive step requirement.
Intelligent Energy Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
Intelligent Energy Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 3716/CHENP/2007) by the Controller General, which held that the invention lacked inventive step due to close resemblance to prior art D1. The appellant argued that their technique for capturing byproduct hydrogen represented a significant improvement over existing technology. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
Genmab A/S v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Genmab A/S appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 4718/CHENP/2007) for a monoclonal antibody targeting human CD38. The respondent argued that the antibody was merely a discovery of a naturally existing molecule, thus ineligible under Section 3(c). The High Court set aside the rejection, finding that the antibody was produced through substantial human intervention and possessed inventive step.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents
Micro Labs Limited filed this Commercial Suit seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 243301 and an injunction against Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH Co. KG. The court noted that the same parties were involved in related proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Consequently, the application to withdraw the suit was allowed.
Industeel France v.The Assistant Controller of Patents, Design, Trade Mark And Geographical Indications Patent Office
Industeel France appealed against the rejection of its patent application (No. 119/CHENP/2007) by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller repeatedly changed objections and prior arts, causing procedural inconvenience. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order and remanding the matter for fresh examination.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Sachin Gupta Trading As M/S Jai Balaji Grah Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S. Serveshwar Food Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Defendants for alleged trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'LACY' brand. The court allowed the Plaintiff to conduct a search and seizure operation at the Defendants' premises using Local Commissioners, aiming to prevent further unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks like 'LECY'. This order establishes strong preliminary protection for the Plaintiff's established goodwill in the FMCG sector.
Prakash Singh & Anr. v.Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed cancellation petitions filed by Prakash Singh & Anr. seeking the removal and rectification of trademarks registered by Guruji Ka Ashram & Anr. The petitioners alleged that the respondent, a charitable trust, sought to monopolize the spiritual heritage and goodwill associated with the late 'GURU JI' on a mala fide basis. The Court accepted notice from the respondent and scheduled the matter for further arguments.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 646 825. The plaintiff Edwards Lifesciences Corporation initially requested that a scheduled interim hearing be conducted in person rather than by video conference, and that the court provide simultaneous German-to-English interpretation. After the presiding judge indicated both requests would likely be denied, the plaintiff withdrew both requests and agreed to the video conference format and to jointly retain a private interpreter with the defendants under Rule 109.4 of the Rules of Procedure, splitting the costs equally.
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.