IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 184 of 218 · 6,517 total
M/s.Mesmer Pharmaceuticals v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration of 'REJUSTAR' in Class 5. The Registrar had cited phonetic similarity to other marks, but the court held that it was premature to determine deceptive similarity based solely on scrutiny under Section 11. Given that the appellant's mark is an invented word and the cited marks were used for different goods or outside India, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for further processing.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Mohd. Nazim And Anr.
The Delhi High Court registered the commercial suit filed by Glaxo Group Limited against Mohd. Nazim And Anr., concerning alleged trademark infringement of 'AUGMENTIN' by the use of 'ZENMENTIN' for similar pharmaceutical products. The court allowed several procedural applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and granting permission to submit sealed documents related to sales figures. Crucially, the court directed that notice be issued to the defendants regarding the injunction application (I.A. 5188/2024), setting the stage for a full trial on the infringement claim.
Hmd Global Oy v.The Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trademark Registry
Hmd Global Oy successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its word mark 'PureDisplay' in the Madras High Court. The core issue was the Registry's finding that the mark lacked distinctiveness, despite the appellant providing evidence of global use and registration. The court found that the Registrar violated principles of natural justice by passing an order under a different section (9(1)(b)) without giving the appellant a hearing on that specific ground. Consequently, the rejection was set aside, and the application was remanded for final consideration.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Plant-e, Plant-e Knowledge v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson challenges Omachron's surface cleaning vacuum patent (10,568,477) in an IPR, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art references Dimbylow/Howes and Brown/Vuijk to demonstrate obviousness across multiple claim sets.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The petitioner asserts that U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 is invalid due to anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior art references in the field of nasal therapy. The core arguments focus on how Saadat anticipates key claims, while combinations of Makower, Fang, and Edwards-535 render other claims obvious.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Dyson's IPR challenge against Omachron's vacuum cleaner patent (10,568,477). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success, rejecting arguments based on prior art references like Brown and Dimbylow.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.
NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al. v.The Foundry, LLC et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that multiple claims of the '077 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references. The Board found that a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine existing RF ablation and nasal treatment technologies.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the acceptance of a pre-grant opposition by the Patent Office despite an internal decision to proceed with the patent grant. The court addressed procedural issues related to the timing of the decision versus the filing of the opposition, referencing Section 43 of the Patents Act.
Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh Subsidiary Of Accell Group v.Reliance Brands Limited (Rbl)
The Delhi High Court addressed preliminary objections and the merits of a trademark infringement suit filed by Swiss Bike Vertriebs Gmbh against Reliance Brands Limited. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's use of 'RALLEYZ' is confusingly similar to its registered mark 'RALEIGH' on identical goods (bicycles). While dismissing initial procedural challenges, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits and pleadings regarding the core issues of similarity and prior usage, setting the stage for further substantive hearings.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a complex trademark dispute between Rexcin Pharmaceuticals and Rekin Pharma concerning the similar corporate names 'REXCIN' and 'REKIN'. The court noted that while Rexcin holds registrations for 'REXCIN', they are not currently using it commercially, whereas Rekin has registered 'REKIN-SP' in Class 05. To resolve the conflict, the Court proposed a potential settlement where both parties could agree to restrict the use of the disputed term only as part of their corporate name, rather than as a trademark or trade name. Both counsels agreed to consult their clients on this proposal and were directed to consider mediation.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Daichi International
In this trademark infringement suit, Western Digital alleged that Daichi International was rebranding and reselling used/refurbished HDDs originally manufactured by WD under the 'Daichi' brand. The Delhi High Court issued conditional interim directions, allowing sales to continue but mandating that all impugned products must carry a clear disclaimer stating they are used and refurbished goods. Furthermore, the defendant was ordered to file detailed stock statements regarding the purchase and sale of these specific HDDs.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Jyoti Dewani
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Pataka Industries Private Limited against Jyoti Dewani. The court noted that the appellant had previously benefited from an injunction and allowed the application, restraining the respondent from using the trademark '502 Pataka' on any product or label until further orders. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established trademarks.
Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. v.Khatri Healthcare P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court clarified its earlier order in this trademark cancellation petition. The Petitioner, Wings Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd., sought clarification after raising objections regarding territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to withdraw the current case and file a fresh petition before the appropriate Trademark Registry in Mumbai. Crucially, the court emphasized that this withdrawal does not prejudice the parties' rights or express any view on the merits of the original dispute.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
The provided document contains no substantive judgment text; it consists solely of an administrative note indicating the document was uploaded for technical (CMS) reasons to close a workflow, accompanied by a digital signature from Margot Elsa Kokke dated December 13, 2024.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread seeks a PTAB Director Review to overturn the Board’s claim construction that narrows the carrier‑movement limitation of its semiconductor patent. The owner argues the construction conflicts with the specification, prosecution history, and district‑court rulings, and that the cited references do not teach the required functionality.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Greenthread, LLC has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s claim construction in a power‑semiconductor patent owned by Monolithic Power Systems. The owner contends the Board’s construction mischaracterizes the claims and that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that the PTAB correctly applied the prosecution history to the ‘aid the movement of carriers’ limitation and that Greenthread’s Director Review request merely repeats arguments already rejected. The petitioner seeks denial of the request to preserve the invalidity finding.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR on claim 44 of Greenthread’s ’222 patent after finding a reasonable likelihood that Monolithic Power Systems would prevail, based on obviousness arguments over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems argues that Greenthread’s request for Director Review should be denied because the Board’s interpretation of the claim term “aid” was correct and the arguments have already been rejected in prior proceedings.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a response opposing Greenthread’s request for Director Review of a PTAB decision that found the ’195 patent claims unpatentable. The petitioner contends the Board correctly applied prosecution history and that the request merely repeats arguments already rejected in multiple IPRs.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s claim construction and obviousness finding for its MOSFET doping‑profile patent (U.S. 9,190,502). The petitioner argues the Board misinterpreted functional claim language and ignored district‑court rulings, asserting that the cited references do not teach the required carrier‑movement limitation.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully instituted an IPR against Greenthread’s 8,421,195 patent covering CMOS devices with graded dopant regions, citing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. initiated an IPR challenging Claim 44 of Greenthread's U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition asserts that the claimed CMOS semiconductor fabrication structure is obvious based on prior art references including Onoda and Kawagoe.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 regarding semiconductor device claims (7 and 8) in an IPR proceeding. The Petitioner argues that the claimed graded dopant profiles and electric drift fields are obvious over prior art references like Onoda and Kawagoe. The Board has instituted the case for trial, finding the evidence compelling enough to proceed with the challenge.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v.Greenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems challenges Greenthread's semiconductor patent (8421195) before the PTAB, asserting that the claimed CMOS device improvements are obvious. The petitioner relies on multiple prior art references, including Onoda and Kawagoe, to demonstrate a lack of inventive step in creating electric drift fields via graded dopant concentration.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
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.