IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 34 of 218 · 6,517 total
Monster Energy Company v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Monster Energy Company's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark 'SUPER FUEL.' The court found that the Registrar erred by comparing 'SUPER FUEL' (for non-alcoholic beverages) with a similar existing mark ('FUEL') used for different products. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, and the appellant was directed to be allowed to publish the trademark in the journal, allowing any third parties to file opposition petitions on merits.
Tecniqua India Private Limited v.Abdullah Proprietor Of Azam And Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Tecniqua India Private Limited seeking permission to introduce additional legal proceedings certificates related to registered trademark applications of both parties. The court granted the request, subject to issuing proper notice to Respondent No. 1, setting a return date for January 15, 2025. This order indicates ongoing procedural steps in the trademark dispute.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of Juul Labs' European Patent EP 3 498 115 B1, directed to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). Juul Labs, as defendant, sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form based on twelve auxiliary requests. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claims as granted and all proposed auxiliary requests added matter extending beyond the content of the parent and grandparent applications as filed, in violation of Article 123(2) EPC.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application for provisional measures before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, seeking to prevent the alleged infringement of its European Patent EP 2519412 concerning motorcycle tyres. The defendants were scheduled to exhibit allegedly infringing products at the EICMA International Cycle and Motorcycle Exhibition in Rho-Fiera, Milan, from 5-10 November 2024. The court granted the limited request for seizure and delivery of the contested products and related promotional materials, along with authorization for alternative service at the defendants' exhibition stand.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 504 991 B1 owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., which relates to vaporization device systems (cartridges for generating inhalable aerosols). The Court dismissed the revocation action entirely, finding that the Claimant had failed to establish lack of novelty or inventive step, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. and China Council for the Promotion of International Trade, Automotive Sub-council
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. sought provisional measures from the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co. Ltd. and CCPIT, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 (titled 'motorcycles tyre') by tires marketed as HA-51R and HA-51F. The court found the requirements for provisional measures satisfied, including urgency due to the imminent EICMA 2024 trade fair in Milan, and authorized the seizure of the allegedly infringing tires and related promotional materials at the respondents' exhibition stand.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application for provisional measures without hearing the other party before the Local Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court, seeking a preliminary injunction against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited based on European Patent No. EP 4 240 194, which relates to a fastening device for communication units. The Court granted the provisional measures, including an injunction, an order for delivery up of infringing products at EICMA 2024, and penalty payments, subject to the Applicant providing security of €100,000.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against infringement of a registered patent for a self-locking glazing system. The present application sought permission to take on record additional invoices and bank statements, which were needed to respond to objections raised by the defendant regarding discrepancies in earlier filings. The court allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) CPC.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs' order refusing to grant a patent application (No. 201947017337). The appellant subsequently sought permission from the High Court to withdraw the appeal.
Ms Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.The Commissioner Of Customs Appeals & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order sets the stage for a complex dispute concerning Intellectual Property Rights enforcement at customs. The petitioner has raised several critical questions, including whether protection can be granted without adhering strictly to the IPR (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007, and whether failure to mention specific goods in import documents constitutes misdeclaration. The court has allowed procedural applications and scheduled the main hearing for February 12, 2025.
Beerco Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Beerco Ltd.'s appeal against the Registrar's refusal to register its trademark 'BeerCo' under Class 32. The court found that the initial rejection was based on a non-speaking order and failed to consider the appellant's existing registrations for similar marks. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed, directing the Registrar to allow publication of BeerCo in the Trademark Journal so that third parties could raise any objections.
Mathys & Squire LLP (Application under Rule 262.3 RoP in UPC_CFI_75/2023) v.Ex Parte
Mathys & Squire LLP, an intellectual property law firm, applied under Rule 262.3 of the Rules of Procedure for access to unredacted versions of written pleadings in a revocation action (UPC_CFI_75/2023) concerning EP3056563, where certain information had been kept confidential at the request of the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The Applicant argued that the redacted information was not genuinely confidential as it was either already publicly available or merely a summary of submissions already provided. The Court of First Instance (Central Division, Munich) found the application admissible and well-founded, holding that the Claimant had failed to contest the Applicant's assertions in a substantiated manner, and granted access to the unredacted documents.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 145 848 B1 ('false twist texturing machine') with unitary effect in Italy and Germany, sued Bhagat Textile Engineers for infringement after Bhagat exhibited an allegedly infringing machine at the ITMA trade fair in Milan in June 2023. Bhagat did not contest the validity of the patent or the infringement, but denied damages and sought suspension pending a parallel revocation action. The Milan Local Division found infringement, granted a permanent injunction with a penalty, awarded provisional damages, and ordered Bhagat to bear 80% of the costs.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of institution for a plant‑utility patent, arguing the Board created an improper bright‑line rule that shields patents based on secret parent lines. The petition cites statutory and policy grounds, seeking Director review.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB Director denied Inari Agriculture’s request for a Director Review of institution decisions in four PGR cases involving Pioneer Hi-Bred’s seed patent. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has filed a PGR petition challenging Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s U.S. Patent 11,696,545 covering an inbred corn variety. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art patents, lack of utility, and insufficient written description and enablement. Inari seeks institution of the review and cancellation of claims 1‑20.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging numerous claims of Sebia's patent (No. 7887686) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that combining known techniques, such as using zwitterionic buffers with flow inhibitors in Capillary Electrophoresis, is predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology filed an IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding U.S. Patent No. 11,501,822, challenging its validity based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The petitioner successfully established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits and met all procedural requirements for institution.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of Inari Agriculture's PGR against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success, specifically failing to adequately address the unique genotype (PH4CYJ) central to the patent.
Helena Laboratories Corporation v.Sebia
Helena Laboratories Corporation's IPR challenge against Sebia regarding hemoglobin analysis claims was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error in the Examiner's rejection, particularly concerning prior art references like Shihabi and Huang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully secured institution in a PTAB proceeding against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding non-volatile memory technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on multiple grounds of obviousness over prior art references Lee, Zhao, and Yang.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the patent claims were unpatentable over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, the Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness against Zhao and Lee, leading to the rejection of nearly all challenged claims.
UNILIN BEHEER B.V. v.BALAJI ACTION BUILDWELL
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing its registered patent related to flooring technology. The case involves the plaintiff's licensing program and the confidentiality of third-party license agreements.
K. Ramu (Deceased) & Lavanya Ramu v.Adyar Ananda Bhavan
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against Adyar Ananda Bhavan for infringing two patents (process and product) related to sweets made with fructose/levulose. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because the relevant patents had expired, rendering the main relief infructuous.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by Scandit AG under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure to file a reply to Hand Held Products' response to the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding that Scandit had not sufficiently justified why a reply was necessary, and held that further prior art could not be introduced at the appeal stage without proper justification.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP4108782 (owned by Harvard College). The defendant Vizgen sought an order under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure requiring the claimants to produce specific documents and deposition transcripts previously disclosed in parallel US proceedings in Delaware. The court granted the production request in part, ordering the production of numerous designated documents and transcripts, while imposing strict 'Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only' confidentiality protections.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences' '781 patent on grounds of obviousness (103) related to colorectal cancer diagnostics. The petitioner argues that combining known methods for fecal sample processing, such as DNA methylation and blood protein testing, renders the claims unpatentable over prior art references. This challenge targets multiple diagnostic claim sets across the patent.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Exact Sciences Corporation's patent (11634781). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all grounds, specifically regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification sought provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against three Magna entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 concerning a rotary electric machine with a lubricant reservoir. The court granted the injunction in part, ordering the Defendants to cease offering, placing on the market, or using infringing rotary electric machines and assemblies in Germany and France, subject to a security of EUR 2,500,000 and with a limited exception for existing BMW delivery obligations.
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.