IP Cases — 2024
4,762 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 159 · 4,762 total
Phonepe Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.AGF Finlease India Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Phonepe Pvt Ltd against AGF Finlease India Ltd and others. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks like 'PHONEPEY' and 'PHONEPEY LOAN,' leading to infringement, passing off, and dilution of PhonePe's goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered a restraint on the use of these marks across various platforms and directed the suspension of specific domains and social media accounts.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Tilaknagar Industries Limited & Ors
In a suit concerning alleged trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. Crucially, regarding the interim injunction application, the court accepted the defendants' commitment to immediately stop using the disputed label on new products as of December 26, 2024. This temporary relief is subject to the defendants exhausting their existing stock bearing the impugned label, which they must detail in an affidavit.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v.Two Star Media Private Limited
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of a deceptively similar trademark (LIVE TIMES) registered by Two Star Media Private Limited. The petitioner argued that its own trademarks, 'TIMES' and its family, are prior, extensively used since 1943, and highly reputed. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on trademark infringement and similarity.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Wipro Gas Service & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Wipro Gas Service & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'WIPRO,' which it alleged was being infringed and used deceptively by the defendants. Given that the defendant failed to appear despite service, the court found a prima facie case existed, leading to an immediate restraint order on the use of the identical mark.
Rahul Mishra & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.
Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. v.John Doe/ Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. against John Doe and others. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents. Crucially, the court permitted specific service methods—such as email communication via designated Grievance Officers—for defendants located outside India or those identified as DNRs (Defendant Not Represented), while also exempting the plaintiff from advance service upon Defendant No. 1 due to the urgent nature of the relief sought.
Insulet Corporation v.Respondent
1) The intervener must proof an interest justifying the support to the reasons of one of the
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns three consolidated patent infringement actions brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested leave to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The presiding judge granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40 percent partial refund of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE v.Respondent
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Division Munich's August 30, 2024 decision revoking European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action brought by Avago Technologies against Tesla entities. After Avago filed an appeal, Tesla filed a cost determination application, which Tesla subsequently sought to withdraw. Avago also sought leave to withdraw the main action. The presiding judge granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application, declared those proceedings terminated, and ordered each party to bear their own costs in the cost determination proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_814/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 Concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, Memodo GmbH, PowerDeal SRL v.Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_813/2024 Ordonnance de conservation des preuves (saisie) et de descente sur les lieux du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23/12/2024 concernant R.192 à 199 RdP DEMANDEUR TIRU 7, rue du Dr Lancereaux 75008 Paris Représenté
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied iRhythm’s petitions for review of the USPTO’s discretionary denial to institute several IPRs against Welch Allyn, leaving the original institution denials in place.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm’s request to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its cardiac monitor patent was met with a detailed response from Welch Allyn, asserting the Director’s holistic discretionary denial was proper under §314(a). The Board’s denial stands pending any further review.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla’s petition to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 7,181,743 was denied after the Board found no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the prior‑art reference Welch does not disclose the claimed event‑correlation capabilities.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm Technologies seeks a Director Review to overturn the PTAB Acting Director's discretionary denial of its IPR petitions against Welch Allyn’s wearable cardiac‑monitor patents. The petitioner argues the new "settled expectations" rule was applied retroactively, violates precedent, and harms patent quality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Samsung's challenge to claims 1‑8 of U.S. Patent 8,808,909 and granted Samsung’s motion to join the earlier IPR filed by LG Energy Solution, consolidating the disputes.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology seeks a Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Stratasys’s 8,747,097 patent. The petitioner argues the denial violates statutory requirements and recent guidance on Sotera stipulations. The request highlights examiner error and lack of settled expectations by the patent owner.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
Stratasys, the owner of U.S. Pat. 8,747,097 covering 3‑D printing technology, has responded to a challenger’s request for Director Review, arguing the request is untimely and lacks a statutory basis. The patent owner urges the Director to deny the review.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
Court decision.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
An email from the PTAB Director informs Welch Allyn that iRhythm’s Director Review requests for multiple IPRs have been received, outlining a five‑business‑day deadline for a concise response and prohibiting new evidence.
Stingray Group Inc. et al. v.Hernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB Director has received review requests for IPR2025-00349, -00350, and -00351. The petitioner must respond within five days, limited to five pages, with no new evidence.
POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v.ArcelorMittal
POSCO has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of ArcelorMittal’s hot‑stamped coated steel patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition argues that the references were not considered during prosecution and that a skilled artisan would have combined them to achieve the claimed inventions.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a petition for inter partes review of Welch Allyn’s U.S. Patent 10,159,422 covering a wearable ECG sensor. The challenger asserts that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references—Matsumura, Jensen, and Ozguz—and asks the PTAB to cancel them.
Tesla, Inc. v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Therabody, Inc. v.Hyperice IP Subco, LLC et al.
Therabody successfully challenged Hyperice's patent claims in a PTAB proceeding focused on massaging devices. The Board found likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness and statutory deficiencies, particularly regarding the combination of prior art references.
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.