IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 218 · 6,517 total
S.Sudhakar, S.Dhinakar, Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods (W.P.(IPD).No.27) v.The Registrar of Trademarks / The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks (W.P.(IPD).No.27 & 28)
The Madras High Court addressed two related Writ Petitions concerning the trademark TM No.595393. In W.P.(IPD) No.27, the court directed the Trademark Registry to rectify entries and update the digitalized TM-I form to correctly reflect the registered proprietor's name as requested by the petitioners. For W.P.(IPD) No.28, the Court mandated that the Registrar proceed with the pending application filed by a third respondent while simultaneously considering the petitioner's representations regarding rejection of that claim, requiring appropriate orders within eight weeks.
Bibin John v.Lifestyle International Private Limited
The Madras High Court, in an appeal challenging a prior injunction order, allowed the appellant to vacate the interim injunction granted by the lower court. The court noted that while there was no prima facie case for trademark infringement, it found evidence suggesting the appellant's use of e-commerce portals, leading to the reversal of the temporary restraint. However, subsequent proceedings were halted as the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Petition for post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 12152262 filed by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC against Halozyme, Inc.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
The USPTO Director denied Merck’s request for review of the Board’s institution decisions on several PGRs, including Halozyme’s patent 12,152,262. The denial leaves the Board’s original institution findings intact.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck requests Director Review to deny institution of a PTAB post‑grant review of Halozyme’s ‘262 patent covering modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing the Board misapplied eligibility rules and imported a functional limitation into the claim construction.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck defends the institution of a PGR covering modified PH20 enzymes, rejecting Halozyme’s eligibility, claim‑construction, and Fintiv arguments. The response urges the Director to uphold the Board’s earlier institution decision.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00276 concerning patent 11,777,976. The parties cite a settlement agreement and argue that early dismissal saves costs and resources.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield and BitSight reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00276 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement kept confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the joint termination motion and treated the settlement documents as confidential.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson filed a joint request for their settlement agreements to be kept confidential under PTAB rules.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo and Ericsson have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,708,618 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, ending the proceeding before any institution decision.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a PGR petition challenging Halozyme’s 13 claims covering PH20 hyaluronidase variants, asserting lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness. The petition seeks to have the claims declared unpatentable.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc. v.BitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
Lenovo has filed an IPR petition challenging Ericsson’s U.S. Patent 10,708,618 covering reference‑picture signaling in video codecs. The petition argues that all 19 claims are obvious over earlier video‑coding disclosures (Mulroy, H.264/AVC, and Raveendran) and requests the Board to institute the review despite parallel litigation.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully challenged Halozyme, Inc.'s claims regarding modified PH20 polypeptides in a PTAB decision. The Board instituted trial based on enablement and written description grounds, finding that the broad genus of claimed molecules required undue experimentation to identify active variants.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. The defendant, CAN Srl Airxcel Europe, requested extensions of the preliminary objection deadline and the deadline for filing a statement of defense and counterclaim. The court rejected both requests, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an extension under the strict time regime of the Rules of Procedure.
MSG Maschinenbau GmbH v.EJP Maschinen GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 225 320 B1, which relates to a device and method for measuring the straightness of rod-shaped workpieces. Following the complete revocation of the patent by the EPO Board of Appeal on July 4, 2024, the claimant withdrew the infringement action and the defendant sought a declaration that the counterclaim had become moot. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared both proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and granted each party a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600.00 each).
SES-imagotag SA v.Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court following the rejection of SES-imagotag SA's application for interim measures against four Hanshow group companies. The court assessed the recoverable costs of the prevailing respondents (Hanshow entities) at €200,000, applying a plausibility check rather than requiring minute-by-hour breakdowns, and rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding excessive representation and non-recoverable interpretation costs.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al.
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns an application by Abbott under Rule 263 RoP for leave to amend its case following the release of version 4.12.0 of the LibreLinkUp application on September 26, 2024. DexCom opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and would unreasonably hinder its preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for October 30, 2024. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed Abbott's application, finding that while the first condition of Rule 263 (reasonable diligence) was met, the second condition (not unreasonably hindering the other party) was not satisfied given the proximity to the oral hearing.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. & Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This case concerns a panel review of a confidentiality order in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP2792100. The Claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to extend access to confidential information to two US-based attorneys and to future confidential submissions, arguing that excluding them violated its fundamental judicial rights. The Panel rejected the application to dismiss the procedural orders, upheld the restriction on access by the US attorneys, and granted the Defendants' request to replace the redacted version of the Statement of Defence, while granting leave to appeal.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. 3 223 320 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked the patent for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, rejected the plaintiff's requests for amendment, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 1793917 before the Local Division in Düsseldorf, the Defendant (Aarke AB) requested an adjournment of the oral hearing pending the Court of Appeal's decision on its dismissed request for security for costs. The Court dismissed the request for adjournment, holding that since an order concerning security for costs is not listed in Art. 74(3) UPCA, there is no requirement to await a final order of the Court of Appeal before rendering its own decision on the merits.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH, expert klein GmbH
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. sued expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light emitting diode. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction of infringing products, and damages, while declining to require security from the plaintiff.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
QIAGEN’s response argues the PTAB correctly found material error in the examiner’s reliance on a flawed declaration and that the Board’s institution decision stands. The petition challenges the patent owner’s attempt to obtain discretionary denial based on procedural grounds.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of QIAGEN’s IPR, arguing that parallel petitions create inefficiency and unfairness. The request cites statutory grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 316(b) and an Acting Director memo.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The USPTO denied QIAGEN's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving patent 10,876,108 owned by Tecan.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
The PTAB notified QIAGEN that Tecan’s Director Review request for IPR2025-00029 is pending. QIAGEN has five days to submit a concise, five‑page response limited to the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Group AG seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB institution decision that granted QIAGEN's IPR petition challenging its genotyping patent. The owner contends the panel abused discretion, over‑relied on expert testimony, and ignored policy against multiple parallel petitions.
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.