IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 218 · 6,517 total
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 3 594 009 B1 in a patent infringement action. The Court disregarded the Defendants' written submissions filed on 28 November 2024 because the Defendants failed to make a reasoned request for further written submissions as required under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
NJOY Netherlands B.V. filed a revocation action against VMR Products LLC concerning European patent EP 2 875 740 B1, which relates to electronic vapour products. NJOY challenged the patent's validity on the ground of lack of inventive step, relying on prior art documents including 'Cross', 'Pan', and 'DiFonzo', as well as common general knowledge. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) dismissed the revocation action, finding that the invention was not obvious in view of the cited prior art combinations, and maintained the patent as granted, ordering NJOY to bear the costs.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation, a Japanese company, brought a patent infringement action against three German Kodak entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division, choosing English as the language of proceedings. FUJIFILM requested simultaneous interpretation from English to Japanese at the oral hearing for its representatives who lacked sufficient English skills. The court granted the request for interpretation but ruled that the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, allowing FUJIFILM to engage an interpreter at its own expense.
Aarke AB v.SodaStream Industries Ltd.
Aarke AB appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf dismissing its request for an order requiring SodaStream Industries Ltd. to provide security for costs under R.158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 793 917. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that only the financial position of the claimant itself is relevant, that willingness to reimburse is irrelevant, that the court should not evaluate the likelihood of the case outcome, and that Aarke failed to provide sufficient evidence that enforcement of a cost order in Israel would be unduly burdensome.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have reached a settlement over U.S. Patent 9,064,764 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR, also requesting that the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359 before institution. The settlement agreements were ordered confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx reached a settlement that terminated the inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,224,359 before the trial was instituted. The Board ordered the settlement and related license agreement to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,224,359 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx settled their inter partes review disputes before the PTAB instituted the trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and patent‑owner SiOnyx settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 before a trial began. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition targeting YMTC’s 3D NAND ‘276 patent, asserting that all 18 claims are obvious over Kim, Fang, Han, and Chen. The petition argues no discretionary denial applies and seeks institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 36 claims of SiOnyx’s ’599 image‑sensor patent, asserting that each claim is obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate given the lack of prior petitions and a stayed ITC case.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 79 claims of SiOnyx’s image‑sensor patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Hwang and other references, and urging the Board to deny any discretionary denial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of Yangtze Memory’s 3D NAND ‘838 patent, arguing they are obvious over several prior‑art references and that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to cancel 79 claims of SiOnyx’s 10,224,359 image‑sensor patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Iida and other prior art. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial would be improper.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics filed a petition to challenge SiOnyx's U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Court decision.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent 11,101,276 B2. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Micron can prove obviousness over prior art references like Kim and Fang.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.S.A Medline Private Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited and S.A Medline Private Limited reached a joint settlement in the Delhi High Court regarding a trademark dispute. As part of the compromise, the defendant agreed to withdraw its contested trademark registration (No. 5328362) within seven days. The court accepted the terms, decreeing the suit against the defendant and allowing for a refund of court fees.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Mr Arvind Kumar & Anr.
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against Mr. Arvind Kumar & Anr. in the Delhi High Court. The court found that the defendants' use of identical packaging and trade dress for their product was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SHRIRAM 303'. Given the likelihood of market confusion and irreparable injury to Dcm Shriram Limited, the court granted immediate relief restraining the defendants from using any deceptively similar marks or designs.
Appellant v.Amycel LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against an unnamed Appellant who had appealed an order of provisional measures issued by the Local Division The Hague concerning EP 1 993 350. The Appellant had initially declared micro-enterprise status to qualify for a reduced court fee but failed to substantiate his status as a small enterprise when ordered to do so, and did not pay the additional fees imposed. The Court denied the Appellant's requests to waive the additional fee and for legal aid, closed the appeal by default, and ordered the Appellant to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France SARL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 28 November 2024 in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The order classifies certain information contained in the Defendants' Statement of defence and specific exhibits as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP, and restricts access to a defined group of authorised persons on the Claimant's side.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed an order by the Deputy Controller refusing to grant a patent for a Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on the timing (filing after original patent grant) and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the timing issue was not proven against the appellant and that principles of natural justice were violated.
BASF SE v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
BASF SE appealed against an order refusing to grant a patent for its Divisional Application. The refusal was based partly on timing and lack of distinctiveness. The High Court quashed the order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the fact that the application was filed on the same day as the original patent grant, and also violated principles of natural justice.
Sharad Mehra v.Sanjay Mehra
In a dispute stemming from a prior settlement between two brothers, Sharad Mehra filed an application alleging that Sanjay Mehra was violating the terms of their agreement by misusing the trade name 'Superon' and interlinking group companies. The Delhi High Court found prima facie evidence suggesting a violation of the Settlement Terms regarding the use of promotional materials at an International Trade Fair. Consequently, the court issued interim directions compelling the Respondent to immediately remove all banners and stop using any promotional material that conjunctively uses their company names.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Micor Labs Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited sought the rectification of Micor Labs Limited's trademark 'DOLOBENE', arguing it was deceptively similar to their mark 'DOLOBAN'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence. The court found that Mankind had lost its right to claim prior user due to the significant lapse between Micor Labs' registration date and the filing of the rectification application.
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.