IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 187 of 218 · 6,517 total
ICPillar LLC v.ARM Limited and Others (Procedural Order on Alternative Service)
ICPillar LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP3000239, filed an infringement action against 12 defendants of the ARM group. This procedural order addressed ICPillar's application under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure for an alternative method of service of the Statement of Claim on four UK-based defendants (Arm Limited, Apical Limited, Simulity Labs Limited, and SVF Holdco). The Paris Local Division deemed the Statement of Claim served on 7 February 2024, based on bailiff-confirmed deliveries via FedEx and DHL.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health, Inc. challenges the validity of Data Health Partners' patent (11144554) in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the goal-tracking system is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Douglas, Wager, Chitiveli, Klotsche, and Koh, to invalidate numerous claims related to client/patient progress tracking in healthcare.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
Teladoc Health successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Data Health Partners' patent (US 11144554), challenging its obviousness over multiple prior art references. The Board found reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, leading to institution for 18 claims.
Teladoc Health, Inc. v.Data Health Partners, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable based on obviousness. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art references rendered the claimed features predictable to one skilled in the art.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed the order dated October 31, 2023, issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Impugned Order rejected the Appellant's patent application (No. 77/DELNP/2015) under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court disposed of applications related to condonation of delay and exemption from filing documents while allowing the respondent to file a reply.
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arena Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The appeal challenged the refusal, which cited claims that were not part of the final application submission. The High Court found the impugned order to be unreasoned and procedurally flawed.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 1783/CHENP/2012) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order did not properly assess non-obviousness, failing to apply established legal principles regarding inventive step analysis. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Calm Water Therapeutics Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of its divisional patent application (No. 201918017795), which was rejected on grounds including conflict with the parent application and non-compliance with various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court found that the Assistant Controller evaluated the application based on claims that had been waived by the appellant, leading to inconsistencies in the refusal order.
Adama India Private Limited v.FMC Corporation & Anr.
This order addresses multiple suits filed in the Delhi High Court concerning patent infringement. Adama India Private Limited has sought a declaration that its CTPR manufacturing process does not infringe FMC Corporation's patent (IN 298645), while FMC Corporation seeks permanent injunction against Adama India for infringement.
Burberry Limited v.M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors.
In this trademark infringement suit, Burberry Limited filed a claim against M/S Petrol Perfume & Ors., alleging that the defendants' perfumes bearing 'MY PETROL' and 'MR. PETROL' marks were deceptively similar to Burberry's registered trademarks and trade dress. The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders, including granting exemptions for document filing and directing the defendants to provide a detailed affidavit regarding all goods manufactured under the impugned marks. This order sets the stage for the full trial on infringement and passing off.
Manking Pharma Limited v.Micro Labs Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by Manking Pharma Limited seeking the removal of the trademark 'DOLOBENE' from the register. The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear for the hearing on two consecutive occasions, leading to the dismissal of the original petition for default.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action (ACT_588685/2023) related to European Patent EP3404726 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The defendant, Laser Components SAS, requested a change of the language of procedure from French to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding that the claimant's choice of French respected the rights of the French defendant and that no serious reasons of convenience or fairness justified a change of language.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3646 825 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat), the claimant Meril Italy srl requested permission to exchange further written pleadings to respond to new arguments raised by the defendant Edwards Lifesciences Corporation in its rejoinder. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the claimant had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting further pleadings and that any reaction to the defendant's arguments could be made during the oral hearing. The request for leave to appeal was also rejected.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Meril Italy srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Unified Patent Court decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv has filed objections to more than 40 exhibits submitted by Microchip in IPR2024‑00495, arguing they are irrelevant, lack foundation, or contain hearsay. The objections cite Federal Rules of Evidence and seek to exclude the material from the trial that has already been instituted.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology challenges Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent, arguing the PTAB’s denial of institution was an abuse of discretion for failing to construe “having” and to analyze prior art. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs that target Aptiv’s USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board abused its discretion by omitting claim construction and prior‑art analysis. The request seeks reversal of the denial.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The USPTO Director denied Microchip Technology's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2024-00558 involving Aptiv's patent 9,460,037. The order provides no further substantive analysis.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies withdrew its request for Director Review in the IPR against Microchip Technology, with Microchip not opposing. The withdrawal is made without prejudice to appeal the Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The USPTO Director denied Microchip's request to review the institution denial of Aptiv's automotive electronics patent.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Aptiv’s U.S. Patent 10,545,899, alleging the Board failed to analyze prior art and apply agreed claim construction.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip files a brief urging the PTAB Director to deny Aptiv’s request for review of the Board’s obviousness ruling on claims 13‑14 of U.S. Patent 9,619,420, a USB switching invention.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The PTAB Director has acknowledged a Director Review request in IPR2024-00495 and limited the petitioner’s response to a 15‑page brief filed within five business days, prohibiting new evidence or additional briefing.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Aptiv Technologies seeks Director review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 13 and 14 of its automotive connectivity patent are unpatentable. The owner contends the Board misapplied the particularity requirement, shifted the burden of proof, and ignored secondary‑considerations evidence. The request targets the Board’s Final Written Decision.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
The Director denied Microchip Technology's request for review of the institution decisions that had denied institution of its IPRs against Aptiv's vehicle communication patent. The denial leaves the institution denials intact.
Microchip Technology, Inc. v.Aptiv Technologies AG et al.
Microchip Technology has filed a Director Review request to overturn PTAB’s denial of institution in two IPRs covering its USB‑hub patent. The petitioner alleges the Board failed to apply an agreed claim construction and ignored prior‑art analysis. The request is pending review by the Director.
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.