IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 45 of 159 · 4,764 total
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Stratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims in the '660 patent, relating to 3D printing. The Board relied heavily on obviousness (103) arguments using combinations of prior art references like Cable/Naware and Comb/Tummala.
Aachi Spices and Condiments Private Limited (and others) v.Aachiamman Chit Funds Private Limited
This appeal before the Madras High Court Commercial Appellate Division challenged a summary judgment that dismissed a suit for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, owners of registered trademarks related to 'AACHI', argued that the judgment was flawed because it was rendered without hearing their arguments. The court found that the impugned judgment proceeded solely on perusal of the plaint and failed to consider the plaintiffs' submissions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summary judgment and remanded the matter back to the Commercial Division for a fresh legal drill.
Sanjeev Gupta v.Aman Gupta Trading As M/S Delhi Electricals Trading Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple petitions concerning trademark disputes between family members. The cases involved rectification requests challenging the registration of marks like 'USHA' and a suit seeking injunction against alleged infringement using the mark 'ANUSHA'. Given the familial nature of the dispute, the court opted not to proceed with immediate litigation. Instead, the parties were referred to Pre-Institution Mediation to explore an amicable resolution. This order highlights the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex family IP disputes.
M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp Through Its Partner Mr. Bharat Khubchandani v.Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises
In a case concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court formalized an amicable settlement between M/S Khubsons Electronics Llp (Plaintiff) and Mr. Gautam Puniani Trading As Yk Enterprises (Defendant). The parties agreed that the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff's well-known trademarks (TAKAI / HAK), acknowledged their rights, and committed to ceasing all use of similar marks. The court decreed the suit based on these terms, which included the cancellation of the infringing trademark and a payment of liquidated damages.
Primetals TechnologiesAustria GMBH v.Danieli &c. spa Danieli Automation spa
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2624977 relating to a driver for a steel strip coiling installation, filed an ex-parte application for preserving evidence and inspection against Danieli & C. S.p.A. and Danieli Automation S.p.A. before the Local Division in Milan of the Unified Patent Court. The applicant alleged that during a September 2023 visit to its customer Nucor Steel Gallatin in Kentucky, US, it discovered a driver for a steel strip coiler manufactured by the Danieli group that appeared to reproduce the teachings of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 of EP977. The applicant sought an order for inspection of the defendants' premises to collect and preserve technical, advertising, and commercial documentation relating to the allegedly infringing drivers.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning the correction of party designation in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich. The plaintiff had originally named a non-existent entity 'Lenovo EMEA DC' as the fifth defendant, which defendants 1-4 argued was not a party-capable entity under Dutch law. The court addressed whether the plaintiff could correct the party designation to identify the correct defendant, Flextronics International Europe B.V., by way of analogous application of Rule 305 of the Rules of Procedure.
Manish Kumar Jain & Another v.Tushar Saraf & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal challenging a prior interim trademark injunction. The court found that while the initial stay was granted based on prima facie evidence, further material had become available to both parties. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the original interim order restraining the appellants from using the marks 'JJ DELUX' and related forms was extended until September 20, 2024, allowing for a comprehensive review by the trial judge.
Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. v.Mumtaz Ahmed & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Gm Modular Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal or rectification of the registered trademark 'GMW' (No. 1978669) from the Register, alleging that it is deceptively and confusingly similar to their own mark. The court accepted notice and directed that respondent no. 1 be served with notice, allowing them four weeks to file a reply. This order sets the stage for further litigation on trademark infringement and rectification grounds.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP petitions PTAB to invalidate Slick Slide's low‑friction slide patent, asserting obviousness over Phillips, Fallgatter, and a nylon‑mesh product, plus lack of enablement and indefiniteness. The petition seeks institution and a finding that the challenged claims are unpatentable.
UATP IP, LLC et al. v.Slick Slide LLC
UATP IP successfully challenged the patentability of claims related to low-friction slide systems and mesh layers. The PTAB granted institution after finding likelihood of unpatentability, moving the case toward trial preparation while providing preliminary claim construction guidance on key terms.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Paragon Cable India & Anr. v.Essee Networks Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Paragon Cable India against Essee Networks Private Limited, upholding a settlement agreement reached between the parties. The core dispute involved the infringement and passing off related to the trademark 'ELEKTRON'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to expeditiously transfer the rights of the 'ELEKTRON' mark into the name of the plaintiffs, formalizing the assignment made by the defendants.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
The Delhi High Court has initiated proceedings in the suit concerning the alleged infringement of the 'HAVELLS' trademark. The court allowed several procedural applications filed by Havells India Limited, granting exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service upon the defendants. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint seeking permanent injunctions for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation, while also addressing an application for interim relief based on the plaintiff's well-known mark status.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Shenzhen Yundig Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Koninklijke Philips N.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 197 316 B1 concerning an oral cleaning system with motivational feedback for electric toothbrush users, filed an application for provisional measures against Shenzhen Yunding Information Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese company selling 'Oclean' brand electric toothbrushes. The dispute concerned the alleged infringement by Philips of the 'X Ultra S' and 'X Pro Digital' toothbrush models being exhibited at IFA 2024 in Berlin. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on September 9, 2024, addressing the application for interim injunctive relief.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. The order revokes a prior directive that had appointed a translation expert, after the parties agreed that the defendants' submitted translation of the priority application could be used and that the relevant Chinese-language documents were identical with respect to the passages relevant to the dispute, particularly regarding 'Preferred Embodiment 2.'
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., v.Respondent
1 Hamburg – Local Division UPC_CFI_88/2024 Preliminary Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued: 09/09/2024 PARTIES: Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, represented by Herrn Götzl, Sandhofer Straße 116, 68305 Mannheim, Germany, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 1
Philips IP Ventures B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order concerning a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 2 372 863. The plaintiff, Philips IP Ventures B.V., requested postponement of the oral hearing originally scheduled for September 11, 2024, citing the rescheduling of a parallel proceeding's decision date and the strategic importance of another related case. The defendants consented to the postponement, and the presiding judge granted the request, rescheduling the hearing to October 23, 2024.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a review under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in three parallel proceedings relating to European Patents EP 2 568 724, EP 2 207 270, and EP 2 315. The defendants challenged the rapporteur's order that only partially granted their request to extend the deadline for filing a rejoinder to the plaintiff's reply on the non-technical (FRAND) part. The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order on the review of the time-limit extension request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed a rehearing request challenging the USPTO’s denial of institution for its IPR on the grounds that the agency’s retroactive policy change violated due process, the APA, and statutory limits. The petition seeks reinstatement of the Board’s original institution decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against Samsung’s network‑stack API patent. The Owner argues the Board misapplied discretionary‑denial factors and erred on claim construction. A termination would end the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Court decision.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all seven claims of The Noco Company's portable jump‑starter patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over prior‑art jump‑starter and USB‑charging references. The decision follows a petition by Deltran USA LLC asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB held that all eight challenged claims of the Noco Company’s jump‑starter patent are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, rendering them unpatentable.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against The Noco Company's 11,584,243 B2 jump‑starter patent. The petitioner, Deltran USA LLC, persuaded the Board that at least one claim is likely unpatentable based on obviousness over combinations such as Richardson + Zhao. All eight challenged claims are now subject to trial.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB found 22 of the 23 claims of The Noco Company's jump‑starter patent unpatentable in an IPR filed by Deltran USA LLC, leaving only claim 11 intact.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
The PTAB granted ADC Solutions Auto LLC’s petition to institute an inter partes review of The Noco Company’s portable jump‑starter patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of Headwater’s ’918 patent, arguing they are obvious over existing wireless‑device technologies. The petition also contends that PTAB discretion should not block institution, referencing Advanced Bionics and Fintiv factors.
Deltran USA LLC et al. v.The Noco Company
Deltran USA LLC challenges The Noco Company's '203 patent, arguing that all 11 claimed features related to jump starter/battery charging technology are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references like Richardson and Zhao to demonstrate the lack of inventive step in DC-DC conversion and USB charging apparatuses.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung's request to institute an IPR against Headwater Research's patent (9647918), citing procedural redundancy with a previously filed, higher-ranked petition.
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.