IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 38 of 159 · 4,764 total
Pfizer Inc v.Teena Biolabs Private Limited
Pfizer Inc filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner and the establishment of a Confidentiality Club. The petition aimed to facilitate the collection of confidential documents and testimony from Teena Biolabs Private Limited in India, which are relevant to ongoing patent infringement litigation (US Patent No. 9,770,441) before the US District Court for the District of Delaware.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. v.Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry & Anr.
Bry-Air (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. challenged the status update issued by the Union of India, which deemed its patent application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to non-filing of a request for examination. The petitioner argued that this failure was solely attributable to the negligence of their erstwhile Patent Agent and not due to any fault or lack of intent on their part. Citing previous judgments where courts extended time in such circumstances, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition. Consequently, the court quashed the deemed withdrawal status and directed the Indian Patent Office to restore the application and allow the petitioner a chance to proceed with examination.
Jai Prakash Singhal v.Tirupati Structurals Limited
The Delhi High Court upheld an injunction restraining Tirupati Structurals Limited (the defendant) from using the trademark 'MM TIRUPATI' due to its deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's registered mark, 'TSL-TIRUPATI'. The court clarified that even if a portion of a trademark is subject to a disclaimer, the overall composite mark can still be protected against passing off. This ruling reinforces the principle that established goodwill and consumer confusion are paramount in protecting brand identity.
Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order concerns a nullity counterclaim filed by Vibrantz GmbH against Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG, the registered patent holder of European Patent No. 3 215 288, while Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG is the substantive patent owner. Heraeus Precious Metals argued the counterclaim should have been directed against the substantive owner and was therefore manifestly hopeless or inadmissible. The Local Division Munich rejected these applications, holding that under Rule 25.1 in conjunction with Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure, a nullity counterclaim may validly be directed against the registered patent holder under Rule 8.6.
Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH v.Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal regarding the review of an order for interim measures in a patent dispute between Mammut Sports Group entities (based in Switzerland and Germany) and Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH (based in Germany). The appeal raised multiple procedural and substantive issues, including the scope of appellate review in interim measure proceedings, the clarity required for appeal grounds, the treatment of late submissions, the assessment of urgency and waiting periods under Rule 211.4, and the applicability of Rule 263 to applications for interim orders. The Court of Appeal issued headnotes establishing important legal principles on these matters, while the full operative provisions of the order were not fully available in the provided text.
DATA DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v.DOYTEC AUTOMATION LTD.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex-parte application for an order to preserve evidence against Doytec Automation Ltd. DDT alleged that Doytec's seed counting machine (C-1012), displayed at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 trade fair in Zwaagdijk-Oost, Netherlands, infringed claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The Court, sitting through a standing judge for extremely urgent matters, found jurisdiction and competence established and addressed the application for seizure of the machine and related documentation.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s ‘546 NAND‑flash patent, asserting abstract‑idea, lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness grounds. The petition relies on extensive expert declaration and prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Micron has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Vervain’s 10,950,300 flash‑memory patent, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior‑art references Dusija and Sutardja.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals and the patent owners filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information, keeping it separate from the patent file. The request relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed an IPR against Axsome Malta’s 11,560,354 patent. The parties settled the dispute early and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals filed a joint motion with Axsome Malta to terminate IPR2024‑01418 after reaching a confidential settlement, resulting in dismissal of the petition before institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all seven claims of Vervain’s ‘612 NAND flash memory patent, alleging lack of written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness. The petition relies on extensive prior‑art patents and technical literature covering hybrid SLC‑MLC flash systems.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International seeks to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 11,576,524 covering espresso‑machine temperature control, arguing they are obvious over the Startz patent and multiple coffee‑machine references. The petition relies on expert testimony and enumerates four §103 grounds.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC. v.Axsome Malta Ltd. et al.
Hikma Pharmaceuticals has filed an IPR petition challenging Axsome’s U.S. Patent 11,560,354 covering solriamfetol compositions. The petition alleges obviousness of claims 1‑8 based on three prior‑art references and argues against discretionary denial of institution.
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v.Vervain, LLC
PHISON ELECTRONICS CORPORATION's petition challenging Vervain, LLC's NAND Flash Memory patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found the specification sufficiently supported the claims against indefiniteness and written description challenges, and Petitioner failed to meet the likelihood standard for obviousness.
Decent Espresso International Ltd. v.DUVALL ESPRESSO IP ENFORCEMENT, LLC
Decent Espresso International Ltd. failed its IPR challenge against Duvall Espresso's brewing system patent, as the Board found insufficient evidence that the prior art rendered the invention obvious. The institution decision denied the petition, maintaining the validity of the core claims related to infused beverage preparation.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The suit concerned infringement of Patent IN 2287201 for Olaparib (LYNPARZA). The Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction and deposit of revenues. Given the patent was nearing its expiration, the Court issued directions requiring the Defendant to disclose earnings and earmark 20% of net sales value in a No Lien account.
Max Healthcare Institute Limited v.Imax Healthcare Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of a temporary injunction sought by Max Healthcare Institute Limited against Imax Healthcare Private Limited. The core dispute centered on the alleged deceptive similarity between Max's well-known 'MAX' trademark, used extensively in healthcare services since 2000, and the respondent's use of 'IMAX'. While acknowledging the strong prima facie case for confusion, the High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing the matter back to the District Judge for a fresh hearing on the injunction application.
Unilever France v.Respondent
1 Paris local Division UPC_CFI_494/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 24/09/2024 REQUERANT (DEFENDEUR dans la procédure principale) Unilever France 20 rue des Deux Gares - 92500 - Rueil Malmaison CEDEX - FR Rep
OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
The Court of Appeal addressed appeals by OPPO and OROPE against orders of the Local Division Mannheim concerning applications for the production of evidence under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendants sought evidence to support their FRAND defense in patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic concerning three European patents declared as standard-essential for the 4G mobile telecommunications standard. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant may rely on Rule 190.1 to request production of evidence, and that the first-instance court has discretion in balancing the defendant's interest in obtaining evidence useful for its FRAND defense against the other party's interest in protecting confidential information.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
1 Milan - Central Division – First Instance - central division UPC_CFI_380/2024 Procedural Order in a Review proceeding of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 24/09/2024. APPLICANT/S in the REVIEW proceedings 1) EOFLOW Co., Ltd. 302Ho, HUMAX VILLAGE
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate the IPR over patent 11,069,737 before any trial. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the petition under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that cancelled all claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s TSV patent. The patent owner contends the Board erred by ignoring expert evidence, failing to construe a claim term, and inventing unsupported modifications to prior art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.SiOnyx, LLC
Samsung Electronics and SiOnyx reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2024-01431 concerning patent 11,069,737 B2. The settlement agreement is kept confidential per statutory requirements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including IPR2024-01402 covering patent 7,745,886, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR on Harbor Island Dynamic’s semiconductor switching‑circuit patent. The patent owner argues the Board misapplied Fintiv precedent regarding the nearby district‑court trial date.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung filed an Authorized Response to the PTAB Director Review request, arguing the Board correctly weighed Factor 2 and should deny the review of Harbor Island Dynamic’s location‑services patent. The brief relies on extensive case law to show that a three‑month trial‑date delta only slightly favors discretionary denial.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Harbor Island Dynamic requested Director Review of IPR2024-01404 (and IPR2024-01402). Samsung has five business days to file a concise response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
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.