IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 36 of 218 · 6,517 total
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. The court rejected FUJIFILM Corporation's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional written pleadings in response to the Kodak defendants' arguments on private prior use raised in their Rejoinder. The court held that allowing further submissions would cause unacceptable delay given the oral hearing already scheduled for December 2024, and that FUJIFILM's right to be heard was not unduly restricted as it could respond to new factual allegations during the interim procedure or at the oral hearing.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, in which the plaintiff Ortovox sought leave under Rule 36 RoP to file further pleadings after learning that the defendants were also offering the 'Barryvox S' with voice control, in addition to the previously attacked 'Barryvox S2'. The court rejected the application, finding that the plaintiff was already protected by confirmed provisional measures regarding the Barryvox S2, and that the Barryvox S was not part of the proceedings, requiring further submissions and response time that could not be accommodated before the scheduled oral hearing.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted a sua sponte Director review of several IPRs involving LifeScan and TikTok after rejecting the patent owner’s motion to terminate on RPI and sovereign‑person grounds. The IPRs are stayed pending the Director’s opinion.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
Court decision.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB Director has opened a sua sponte review to reconsider institution decisions in seven IPRs involving TikTok and diabetes‑monitoring patents after rejecting the Patent Owner’s RPI and sovereign‑person arguments.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to review CellSpin Soft’s U.S. Patent 11,234,121 covering a Bluetooth‑enabled data capture device. They assert the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack written‑description support, seeking institution of the IPR.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan, Senseonics and Ascensia have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft’s 8,904,030 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several Bluetooth‑related prior arts and lack priority. The petition also cites discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co‑petitioners seek IPR of Cellspin Soft’s 9,900,766 patent, asserting that claims 1‑15 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and lack valid priority. They also highlight discretionary factors favoring institution.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Cellspin Soft's patent, asserting that the claimed wireless data transmission methods are obvious over various combinations of prior art. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, moving the dispute into active review proceedings.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
LifeScan and co-petitioners successfully convinced the PTAB to institute trial on all 15 claims of patent 9900766 against Cellspin Soft, Inc. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed multimedia content distribution methods were obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Singh906, Kahn, and Bluetooth specifications.
LifeScan, Inc. et al. v.Cellspin Soft, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for an IPR challenge against Cellspin Soft's patent (11234121), asserting obviousness over multiple prior art references. Petitioners, including LifeScan and Senseonics, successfully argued that the claims were rendered obvious by combinations of existing wireless technology standards and academic publications.
France Telecom v.Union of India
France Telecom filed a Writ Petition challenging orders from the Patent Office which returned its patent application because the request for examination was made beyond the statutory 48-month limit. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to an error by their Indian agent, constituting exceptional circumstances. The Court accepted this argument and set aside the impugned orders.
Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited v.Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd., Utracon Management Pte Ltd., and Utracon Engineering Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple arbitration applications seeking various interim injunctions against Utracon entities. The applicants, Ucon PT Structural System Private Limited, sought protection against client/employee poaching and the use of the 'UTRACON' name and logo. However, the court found that the non-compete and non-solicitation clause in the underlying Sale of Shares Agreement had expired after 10 years. Furthermore, the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable harm, leading to the dismissal of all interim relief requests.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. Upon a joint request by the parties, the court ordered a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure and cancelled the oral hearing previously scheduled for June 17, 2025.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
Order
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Sioen NV (SIOEN) in infringement proceedings brought by TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH (TEXPORT) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP2186428, relating to tissue construction for protective clothing. SIOEN sought dismissal or stay of the UPC proceedings on the basis of parallel proceedings it had initiated before a Belgian national court, arguing that the Belgian court was first seised. The Court dismissed SIOEN's requests, finding that the parties in the parallel proceedings were not the same and that the conditions for staying or declining jurisdiction under Articles 29, 30, and 31 of the Brussels I recast Regulation were not met.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin Limited, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc. and Others
Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities and their directors for infringement of European Patent EP 2 867 997 concerning inductive power transmission systems. The Local Division Munich found infringement and ordered remedies against both the corporate entities and their managing directors. Belkin appealed and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal partially granted the request, ordering suspensive effect only with respect to enforcement against the individual directors, holding that a managing director of an infringing company cannot be considered a 'third party' under Article 63 EPGÜ for intermediary liability purposes.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s adjustable child‑carrier patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing indefiniteness of a key claim term.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
BabyBjörn has filed an IPR petition challenging The Ergo Baby Carrier’s 2023 adjustable child carrier patent, asserting that all 24 claims are anticipated or obvious over existing baby‑carrier manuals and patents.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of an IPR challenge against The Ergo Baby Carrier's patent on adjustable baby carriers. Petitioner failed to meet its burden of persuasion, specifically regarding the public accessibility of key prior art and demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits.
BabyBjorn AB et al. v.The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied BabyBjörn AB's request to institute a second Inter Partes Review against The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc., citing insufficient grounds for parallel proceedings.
M/s Rspl Limited v.M/s Sunil Store (Proprietor & Owner) Trading as M/s Parth Store
The plaintiff, M/s RSPL Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, M/s Sunil Store, alleging infringement of its trademarks and copyrights related to detergent products. The court found that the defendant was infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark GHARI/GHADI and passing off goods as belonging to the plaintiff.
M/s Hi-Tech Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Spdd Infra Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff sued the defendants for a decree of Rs. 46,54,721/-, along with interest and permanent injunction, alleging misuse or infringement related to 80 patented moulds used in constructing Reinforced Earth (RE) Walls. The court examined the contractual relationship and the claims regarding outstanding payments.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
Cipla has filed an IPR petition challenging Gilead’s 2023 ‘802 patent covering a bictegravir/TAF/FTC single‑tablet HIV regimen, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cipla Limited v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
Procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court joining an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation for joint hearing. Cretes NV, holder of European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152, brought an infringement action against Hyler BV, which filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of those patents. The court ordered both proceedings to be heard together under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA and Rule 37(2) RoP for reasons of efficiency and consistent patent interpretation.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
Essity’s ‘138 patent covering a layered fluid‑flow control structure in diapers was challenged by First Quality. The Patent Owner’s response argues that the cited prior art does not meet the claim limitations, teaches away, and that the Petitioners’ expert lacks proper qualifications. The Board had already instituted the IPR.
First Quality Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Essity Hygiene and Health AB
First Quality Enterprises has petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Essity's 9,308,138 absorbent article patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition challenging all 23 claims of Adaptive Spectrum’s ’313 patent, alleging obviousness over prior‑art patents Diener and Shaffer. The petition argues the Board should not deny institution and seeks a finding of unpatentability.
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.