IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 41 of 159 · 4,764 total
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
Deere & Company filed an IPR petition challenging four claims of a dozer‑blade stabilization patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLAS v.AGCO Corporation
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for any challenged claim. The grounds relied on obviousness (103), utilizing combinations of prior art references including Hubalek and KR’062.
Deere & Company v.David’s Dozer V-Loc System, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against a dozer stabilizer patent (10533300). The Board found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, specifically rejecting obviousness grounds based on Funk and Lewis.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of the Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a consistent disclosure model, directing that all seven PLAs held by the plaintiffs and the full Qualcomm agreement held by the defendants must be shown to all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
The application sought clarification on the extent to which Interdigital's Patent Licensing Agreements (PLAs) should be disclosed to the in-house employees of Guangdong Oppo Mobile, who are part of a Confidentiality Club. The court ruled that both parties must follow a reciprocal disclosure model, requiring full access to PLAs for all members of the Confidentiality Club.
Udaykumar Chabidas Patel v.Controller of Patents and Designs & Anr.
The petitioner filed an application before the Calcutta High Court complaining about the delay in the disposal of his pending application before the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. The said application sought the cancellation of a registered design belonging to another party. The court disposed of the petition without passing any order.
Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc v.Designarch Consultants Private Ltd
This Delhi High Court judgment resolves a complex trademark dispute between Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC and Designarch Consultants Private Ltd through a comprehensive settlement. The parties mutually agreed to acknowledge each other's core trademarks, such as 'BURJ AL ARAB' and 'BURJNOIDA'. Crucially, the agreement mandates the withdrawal of numerous pending cancellation petitions and oppositions filed by both sides, effectively clearing the path for continued use while establishing clear boundaries on brand usage.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC against Dr. Neeraj Yadav & Anr., finding a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court restrained the defendants from using deceptively similar marks like 'VERIEZON' across their hospital, pharmacy, and domain name. This crucial interim order protects Verizon's brand while allowing the parties time to contest the claims.
Kiehberg Gmbh And Anr v.Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Kiehberg GmbH against Capital Airgun Manufacturers Private Limited. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of passing off, arguing that the defendant's use of the identical trademark 'KIEHBERG' for airguns was likely to cause confusion and damage their established goodwill. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using the disputed mark until the full trial.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
Leayan Global Private Limited v.Comfort X India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Leayan Global Private Limited and Comfort X India & Anr., granting a request for adjournment. While arguments were pending regarding the distinctiveness of competing trademarks like 'COMFORT WALK,' the court allowed the petitioner to present additional documents despite their recent filing. The hearing was re-notified for December 17, 2024, contingent upon Leayan Global depositing costs.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Volkswagen AG's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's refusal to dismiss infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Volkswagen had raised preliminary objections regarding UPC jurisdiction over damages in the UK and Northern Ireland and the validity of opt-out withdrawals, and had sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP on grounds that NST lacked standing and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the Court of First Instance has discretion to defer preliminary objections to the main proceedings, and that Rule 361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and does not require a full exchange of arguments and evidence.
KIPA AB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an unnamed applicant's request under Rule 262.1(b) for access to written pleadings and evidence in proceedings involving Edwards Lifesciences Corporation as claimant and Meril Lifesciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB as defendants, relating to European Patent EP2628464. The applicant claimed to be a board member and investor in a medical device company in the cardiac implant technology field, seeking access as a competitor concerned about the patent's validity. Edwards Lifesciences opposed the request, arguing it lacked a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason, and referenced prior decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi-Aventis and Ocado v. AutoStore. The order addresses the principles of public access under Article 45 UPCA and the requirements for granting access under Rule 262.1(b).
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc. v.Ona Patents SL
This appeal concerned Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division regarding EP 2 263 098. The President of the Court of First Instance had rejected Apple's application on 18 June 2024, finding that Ona had relevant reasons to file in German given its contact person's language skills, the location of defendants' offices, and parallel German-language proceedings. On appeal, the Court of Appeal clarified that when assessing a language change request on fairness grounds, the internal working language of the parties and their ability to coordinate internally and obtain technical support are relevant circumstances, while the existence of other proceedings between the parties before a national court is of less relevance.
Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL
This case concerns an appeal by Google against the rejection of its application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in patent infringement proceedings initiated by Ona Patents SL before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of First Instance had denied Google's request, finding that Ona had legitimate reasons to file in German, including its contact person's fluency in German and parallel proceedings in Munich. The Court of Appeal addressed the additional circumstances relevant to a fairness-based change of language request under Article 49(5) UPCA.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Audi AG's appeal against orders of the Munich Local Division that had dismissed Audi's preliminary objections and requests under R.361 RoP in three parallel patent infringement actions brought by Network System Technologies LLC (NST). Audi had argued that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over damages claimed in the UK and Northern Ireland, that the opt-out withdrawal was invalid due to lack of power of attorney, that NST lacked standing for pre-acquisition damages, and that the Statement of claim was insufficiently substantiated. The Court of Appeal held that the timing of preliminary objection decisions is within the discretion of the Court of First Instance, and that R.361 RoP is reserved for clear-cut cases and not for evaluating the sufficiency of claim substantiation.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over Nokia’s U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,390,137 before trial. The Board terminated the proceeding and ordered the settlement documents to be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 9,390,137 and jointly filed a request to treat the settlement documents as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1, 7‑8, and 11 of U.S. Patent 9,538,788 covering an electronic cigarette heating assembly. The challenger argues that the bulb‑with‑heating‑wire configuration was taught by multiple prior‑art references, making the claims obvious under §103.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s ’137 patent covering context‑aware recommender systems, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Healthier Choices Management Corp.'s electronic cigarette patent (9538788), arguing the claims are obvious in light of prior art.
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company et al. v.Healthier Choices Management Corp.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9538788 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness by combining various prior art references to show that the claimed vaporizing device was predictable in light of existing technology.
Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd.
This Delhi High Court judgment addressed a suit filed by Modern Mold Plast Pvt. Ltd. against Flipkart Internet Pt. Ltd., alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their 'MAHARAJA' brand. The core issue was unauthorized sellers latching onto the plaintiffs' product listings on the e-commerce platform, using the plaintiff's trademark in invoices. While the suit was ultimately disposed of without a final judgment on damages, the Court issued critical mandatory directions compelling Flipkart to actively prevent this practice and immediately disable the 'latching-on' feature upon notification from the plaintiffs.
Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited v.Great Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The court noted that the issues raised by the plaintiff are also subject matter in another suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Dexcom Inc. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Dexcom Inc. (Defendant) - 6340 Sequence Drive - CA 92121-4356 - San Diego - US Statement of c
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
Powell Gilbert LLP, as a member of the public, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from prior proceedings in which Ballinno B.V. had sought provisional measures against UEFA, Kinexon GmbH, and Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH concerning European Patent EP1944067. The Claimant did not comment on the request, while the Defendants did not object provided that sensitive technical data constituting trade secrets was redacted. The Court addressed the application for public access to the court documents, balancing transparency with the protection of confidential information.
AUDI AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Munich Local Division's order denying Audi AG's applications for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The Court held that NST, a small US-based special purpose patent enforcement entity with only two employees, no physical assets, and limited funding, failed to provide sufficient comfort that a possible cost order would be recoverable. The Court ordered NST to provide security for costs in amounts of EUR 100,000, EUR 100,000, and EUR 300,000 in the three related proceedings, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank, within three weeks of service.
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.