IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 198 of 218 · 6,517 total
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has challenged Metarail's deep-linking patents in a PTAB petition, arguing that the claimed invention—a universal variable map for generating deep-linked ads—is obvious. The petitioner asserts that combining prior art references like Belanger and Halevy would have made the automation of mapping fields predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Metarail's '626 patent, arguing that its claims regarding parameter mapping and deep linking automation are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references, including Belanger, Halevy, and Reichardt, to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Collision Communications, Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Collision Communications, citing the Fintiv factors. The Board found that scheduling proximity and significant investment weighed heavily in favor of denying institution despite allegations of obviousness.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for a petition challenging Patent No. 7,746,798 B2, citing both procedural factors and significant weaknesses in the merits. The denial was influenced by the proximity of an expected trial date in related litigation to the final decision timeline.
Apple Inc. v.Rally AG LLC
Apple Inc.'s IPR petition against Rally AG LLC's ID cloaking patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence to overcome obviousness challenges based on prior art references Lee, Hardt, and Le Jouan.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by HP Inc. and others against Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc., citing that the petitioner's allegations of anticipation and obviousness were not 'particularly strong.' The decision also addressed discretionary denial under § 314(a) based on parallel district court litigation.
HP Inc. et al. v.Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition concerning serial data transmission and symbol encoding (Patent No. 7154905). The Board found that while the petitioner raised obviousness arguments, the merits of the case were not sufficiently strong to overcome procedural hurdles.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
The PTAB denied Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s patent (10152734), finding no evidence of obviousness or anticipation. The Board concluded that the prior art failed to teach a specific 'universal variable mapper' necessary for the claims.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing regarding the institution of IPR against Metarail's patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the prior art disclosed the claimed mapping limitations.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep-linking and ad targeting patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that prior art (Belanger and Halevy) did not teach or suggest the specific method of mapping fields between different websites using normalized variables.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's IPR challenge against Metarail, Inc.'s deep linking technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate obviousness over combinations of prior art references like Belanger and Halevy.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against Metarail, Inc.'s patent 9633378, concerning data mapping technologies.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC's attempt to invalidate Metarail, Inc.'s patent on deep-linking and e-commerce technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Google failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
ITCiCo Spain S.L., the defendant in a revocation action brought by BMW concerning European patent EP 2 796 333, requested an extension of time to file its statement of defence until 29 February 2024. The judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of objective impossibility or extreme difficulty in meeting the deadline, and that submitting the extension request on the very last day of the deadline was inconsistent with the principle of fairness.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 (and EP 3 678 321). The court addressed whether to change the procedural language from German to English or to conduct the oral hearing in English. The court ordered that the procedural language remain German, but that the oral hearing and interim hearing be conducted in English based on the flexibility principles in Rule 1.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc. and Dexcom International Limited
Procedural order in infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4070727. Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., as the patent proprietor, sought alignment of the dates for the Statement of Defense, which had diverged for the two defendants due to different service dates. The court ordered both defendants to file their Statement of Defense on 14 March 2024, with the terms for reply and rejoinder adjusted accordingly.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and ST CasesTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 15 claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,620 covering a vehicle acoustic awareness system, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Man Truck Bus Se v.Assistant Controller Of Patents Designs
The appellant, a commercial vehicle manufacturer, appealed the Assistant Controller's decision rejecting its patent application. The appeal argued that the Controller ignored foreign patents filed by the appellant and violated natural justice by relying on prior art (D5) during the hearing which was never included in the initial notice.
Ovid Therapeutics, Inc. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ovid Therapeutics appealed a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for 'Methods of Increasing Tonic Inhibition and Treating Secondary Insomnia'. The initial rejection cited multiple grounds, including non-patentability (Section 3(i) and 3(e)), lack of inventive step, and insufficient disclosure. Ovid Therapeutics argued that their composition offered a synergistic effect and provided novel dosage information not present in the prior art. This appeal challenges the Controller's decision to refuse patent protection for the pharmaceutical methods.
Intercontinental Great Brands Llc v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Intercontinental Great Brands LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for a soluble foaming composition. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient disclosure. The High Court found that the Patent Controller failed to consider the detailed submissions made by the appellants regarding the distinction between their protein-free invention and the cited prior art, leading to the appeal being allowed and the matter remanded.
M/s.Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing appealed the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for its computer-related invention, 'Delegating Instant Messaging Sessions'. The core dispute centered on whether the software met the criteria for patentability under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Microsoft, emphasizing that an invention based on a computer program is not automatically excluded if it demonstrates a clear technical effect or contribution, aligning with international jurisprudence and revised Patent Office guidelines.
Havells India Limited v.B R Engineering Works & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.
Usha International Limited v.Rex Global Limited & Anr
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BUTTERFLY', the Delhi High Court allowed Usha International Limited (Plaintiff) to introduce crucial additional evidence. This decision was made in response to Rex Global Limited's (Defendant) allegations that the Plaintiff lacked proprietary rights and concealed material facts, specifically referencing an earlier adoption of the mark by a Chinese entity. The court recognized the necessity of these documents—ranging from Trade Marks Office reports to records from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce—for a comprehensive adjudication of ownership claims.
Oikos S.P.A. v.Oikos India Pvt Ltd & Anr.
In a dispute over the use of the 'OIKOS' brand, Oikos S.P.A. filed suit against Oikos India Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement after its business relationship was terminated. The Defendants contested the claim, challenging the Plaintiff's ownership rights and citing an existing written agreement allowing stock sales. The Delhi High Court addressed the interim injunction application by appointing a Local Commissioner to conduct a thorough inspection of the Defendant's premises, specifically to determine if the infringing products were made from materials supplied by the Plaintiff.
Ipca Laboratories Limited v.Amandeep Singh Vohra & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Ipca Laboratories Limited seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'IPKA HEALTHCARE.' This decision was based on a consent decree previously passed by the Bombay High Court, where Respondent No. 1 agreed to remove the impugned mark. The court formally cancelled the registration, reinforcing the principle that prior litigation settlements can drive IP rectification.
The Bull Hospitality v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed The Bull Hospitality's appeal, setting aside the Trademark Registry's refusal to register its mark 'THE BULL' (Device). The court held that while the word 'Bull' alone lacks distinctiveness, the accompanying device provided sufficient distinctiveness for registration under Class 43. The Registrar was directed to complete the registration process promptly.
The Hyderabad Public School v.Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding trademark rights, the Madras High Court allowed petitions filed by The Hyderabad Public School. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the mark registered by Hyderabad Public School Pvt. Ltd., following the latter's statement that it had ceased using the mark in India. This ruling clarifies the implications of non-use and voluntary abandonment on trademark registration.
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.