IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 202 of 218 · 6,517 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's video compression patent (8077991) in an IPR proceeding based on obviousness and anticipation grounds. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail, leading to the institution of trial on all contested claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon's IPR petition against Nokia regarding video coding methods was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate obviousness over prior art references like Koga and Lin. The Board relied on claim construction distinguishing 'spatial samples' from 'decoded spatial information.'
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the '223 patent unpatentable over prior art reference Ma based on obviousness. Specifically, Claims 1, 2, 6, and 8-14 were invalidated by the Board's determination that Ma disclosed relevant features.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB found all six challenged claims unpatentable due to anticipation and obviousness. The Board determined that the prior art reference Gloor anticipates every claim (1-6). Furthermore, combinations of Parameswaran with other references rendered the remaining claims obvious.
Illumina, Inc. v.Molecular Loop Biosciences, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the Petitioner's challenge to claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11041852. The Board adopted the Patent Owner’s narrow construction of 'cross-over error,' limiting it specifically to errors during cluster amplification, and found no anticipation or obviousness over cited prior art.
M/S. Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S. Elder Projects Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Elder Projects Limited alleging trademark and copyright infringement concerning the use of deceptively similar marks like ZINCODER for pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions, destruction of infringing materials, and damages. However, the parties successfully reached an amicable resolution through mediation.
Novozymes A/S v.The Controller of Patents
Novozymes A/S appealed an order by The Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a patent on 'Enzyme Dehairing of Skins and Hides'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and being contrary to public order (harm to animals).
Vifor International Ltd & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd & Anr., Corona Remedies Pvt Ltd, Dr Reddys Laboratories Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims by interpreting product-by-process claims as limited only to the specific manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed this significant issue, clarifying that the scope of a patent claim cannot be unduly narrowed merely because it is described using a 'product-by-process' format. The court emphasized that claim construction must define the full scope of protection granted by the patent, allowing the suit proceedings to continue based on this clarified legal position.
Vifor International Ltd v.MSN Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor International Ltd challenged an interim injunction order that restricted its patent claims to only the manufacturing process. The Delhi High Court addressed the critical issue of product-by-process claims, emphasizing that the scope of a patent monopoly cannot be limited solely by the process used to obtain the product. The court clarified that claim construction must define the full scope of the invention as disclosed in the complete specification, allowing for broader protection than merely the method.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
Smt. Uma Rathi v.Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Smt. Uma Rathi initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Ratni Power' registered by Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd., citing grounds under Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court granted exemptions for filing certain documents while simultaneously directing that notice be issued to the respondents. This marks the formal commencement of litigation challenging the validity and registration of the disputed trademark.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac & M/s.Aachi Masala Foods Private Limited, M/s.Flora Foods v.Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, Zomato Limited, Swiggy India
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by A.D. Padmasingh Isaac and associated entities alleging trademark infringement and passing off by Karaikudi Aachi Biriyani Mandi, alongside online platforms Zomato and Swiggy. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunctions against the use of deceptively similar names like 'KARAIKUDI AACHI BRIYANI MANDI' and mandatory orders to remove these listings from digital platforms. While the judgment details the extensive claims for injunctions and removal, it does not provide a final conclusive ruling on all reliefs in this excerpt.
Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd. v.R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd., preventing R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr. from continuing to use packaging that is deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress for Ball Head Racers. The court found a prima facie case regarding the defendants' attempt to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff, noting the similarity in color combination and overall get-up despite differences in trademarks.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Seales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Seales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petitioner had sought to remove and expunge the trademark registration 'TINTOMETER' from the register, citing grounds of wrongful registration or non-use. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on two successive occasions, the petition was dismissed for default.
Sfp Sons India Private Limited v.Mr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
M/s.Shambhunath & Bros v.Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed the petitions seeking rectification of trade mark registrations 'THUFAN' in Tamil and Telugu. The petitioner, M/s. Shambhunath & Bros, claimed prior use of the similar mark 'TOOFAN' since 1987, but the court found evidence suggesting that the predecessors-in-title of the respondent were the prior adopter and user. Consequently, the court held that the technical contraventions cited by the petitioner (such as lack of translation or failure to state period of use) were not sufficient grounds for cancelling the existing registrations.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The case involves a dispute over patent infringement where the plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed their patents. The parties have reached a consent decree to resolve the matter amicably.
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. v.Azista Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The suit concerns the infringement of Plaintiff No. 1's patent (IN 297581) related to the drug Osimertinib, a second-line treatment for non-small cell lung cancers. The Plaintiffs sought an ad interim injunction against the Defendants who were allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing versions under the brand OSITAB.
Rich Products Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Rich Products Corporation filed a writ petition challenging an order that dismissed its pre-grant opposition and permitted the grant of Indian Patent No. 449435. The Court held that since effective mechanisms like post-grant opposition or revocation petitions exist under the Patents Act, 1970, the writ petition could not be entertained.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v.Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple trademark-related suits, including infringement and rectification petitions, involving M/S Sana Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and Dehlvi Remedies Pvt. Ltd. The court framed a comprehensive set of 11 issues to be determined during the trial. These issues cover core disputes such as trademark infringement, passing off, validity of registrations, and the scope of assignment rights related to the mark 'DEHLVI'. This consolidation streamlines the litigation process for both parties.
Hp Organic Foods Private Limited v.Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Hp Organic Foods Private Limited against Shree Khatu Shyam Agro Foods & Ors. The court allowed procedural exemptions for the plaintiff, including filing additional documents and waiving pre-litigation mediation. Crucially, regarding the injunction application (Order XXXIX), the court noted the plaintiff's claims of extensive sales and deceptive similarity in the 'INDANA FRESH' brand used by the defendants. The court directed notice to the defendants and mandated them to maintain detailed accounts of their product sales.
Srinath Kumbargeri Venkatachalappa v.C.A. Shivaram & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in trademark disputes involving the brand 'PARIMALA COFFEE'. The court granted exemptions regarding document submission formats, allowing the petitioner flexibility due to logistical constraints. Crucially, the court also allowed the petitioner to file digitally signed and notarized affidavits despite their attorney being abroad, streamlining procedural requirements for complex IP litigation.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
SMAXTEC and its affiliate contest ST Reproductive Technologies' Director Review request, defending the Board’s obviousness findings for several claims of a livestock health monitoring patent and offering limited remand only to clarify claim 18 and reconcile claims 6, 19, and 20.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One and Implicit, LLC settled their IPR dispute over a payment‑card fraud patent, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
smaXtec Inc. et al. v.ST Reproductive Technologies, LLC et al.
ST Reproductive Technologies requests Director Review of the PTAB’s final decision that invalidated dependent claims 4, 6, and 18‑20 of its livestock‑monitoring patent. The owner alleges the Board misapplied prior‑art references and failed to consider claim‑specific arguments, seeking reversal or vacatur.
Capital One, National Association v.--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00878 after settling with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The parties agree no further litigation will occur over patent 7,774,740.
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.