IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 47 of 218 · 6,517 total
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the refusal by the Assistant Controller to restore Patent No. 408932, which had been ceased due to non-payment of renewal fees. The appellant argued that the failure was caused because the patent grant notification was sent to an erroneous email address instead of the registered service address. The court allowed the appeal, finding that the cessation was not the fault of the appellant.
Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. v.Babu Lal Aggarwal Trading As Modern Namkeen Udyog & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Modern Snacks Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'MODERN' (No. 915745) from the register, alleging that the respondent has adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark and trade dress. While granting procedural exemptions to the petitioner, the court proceeded with the main petition by issuing notice to all parties. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing after both sides file their respective replies.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o., and TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 863 637. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file through the Claimant's representatives, subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on an application by Samsung under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in a patent infringement action brought by US-based Headwater Research LLC concerning EP 2 391 947. The Court found that Headwater, a non-practicing entity with no assets other than patents used in worldwide litigation, failed to substantively challenge the Defendants' concerns about cost recoverability. The Court ordered Headwater to deposit €100,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. and Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed an application by Access Advance LLC, administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court admitted the intervention, holding that a patent pool administrator has a legal interest under Rule 313 RoP, that admission does not per se violate Article 101 TFEU, and that the intervener must be granted access to the case file subject to confidentiality restrictions on information already classified as confidential under Rule 262a RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of a HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against several TCL entities regarding European patent EP 2 645 714 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a legal interest and that allowing it would circumvent a non-disclosure agreement and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich admitted the intervention in support of the Claimant, subject to strict confidentiality restrictions limiting Access Advance's access to certain sensitive information.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others (Access Advance LLC, Applicant)
This case concerns an application by Access Advance LLC, the administrator of an HEVC standard essential patent pool, to intervene in patent infringement proceedings brought by NEC Corporation against multiple TCL entities concerning European patent EP 3 057 321 B1. The Defendants opposed the intervention, arguing that Access Advance lacked a sufficient legal interest and that allowing intervention would circumvent an NDA and potentially violate Article 101 TFEU. The Local Division Munich granted the application to intervene, subject to strict confidentiality protections and procedural conditions.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns an application by EOFLOW Co Ltd to intervene under Rule 313 RoP in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4201327 relating to a patch-insulin pump. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the balance of interests favored a speedy decision in the interim proceedings, that Eoflow's arguments were already being addressed in parallel proceedings before the Milan Central Division, and that the provisional measures would only affect Eoflow indirectly.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd (Request for Intervention by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.)
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against EOFLOW Co. Ltd regarding European Patent EP4201327. The Court first overruled Insulet's preliminary objection that the intervention application was inadmissible because it was filed in hard copy rather than electronically, finding that the CMS lacked a workflow for third-party interventions. On the merits, the Court rejected the intervention request, holding that intervention in interim injunction proceedings is only available in exceptional cases and that Menarini could adequately protect its interests in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (Eoflow Co Ltd Intervention)
Eoflow Co Ltd applied to intervene in provisional measures proceedings brought by Insulet Corporation against A. Menarini Diagnostics concerning alleged infringement of EP 4201327 (a patch-insulin pump patent). The Milan Local Division dismissed the application to intervene, holding that the efficiency of the interim proceedings and the applicant's interest in a speedy decision outweighed Eoflow's interest in intervening, particularly since Eoflow was already a defendant in parallel infringement proceedings before the Milan Central Division.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron seeks to invalidate five claims of Netlist’s memory‑module patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Osanai, Tokuhiro, and Takefman references, and requests the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron successfully challenged Netlist’s ’506 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art memory‑module techniques.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held claims 1, 10‑13, and 21 of Netlist’s ’035 memory‑module patent unpatentable as obvious over Osanai and Tokuhiro, while claims 2, 6, and 22 remained valid.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Netlist’s ’608 patent. The petitioner asserts the Board missed critical explanations of how the Osanai reference satisfies the claimed data‑path and delay‑circuit limitations.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's request for rehearing of its petition to institute an IPR against Netlist's memory‑controller patent, finding that Micron introduced arguments not present in the original petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron has filed a petition for Director Review seeking reversal of the PTAB’s discretionary denial to join Samsung’s IPR against Netlist’s memory‑module patent. The request centers on the inapplicability of General Plastic factors to me‑too joinder petitions.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter‑partes review of Netlist’s ’608 memory‑module patent on claims 1‑5 after Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under obviousness.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s denial to institute its IPR against Netlist’s memory‑interface patent. The petition argues the Board misapplied General Plastic discretionary denial factors to a me‑too petition.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Micron's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Netlist's patent. The original institution denial therefore stands.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron’s petition to invalidate Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied by the PTAB because the petitioner could not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the five challenged claims.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
Micron Technology filed a Petition challenging 10268608's claims on grounds of obviousness (103). The petition asserts that the claimed memory module features are anticipated by combinations of prior art, including Hiraishi, Butt, Tokuhiro, Ellsberry, and Kim.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB denied Micron's petition to join the Samsung IPR, ruling that the challenges were substantively identical to existing filings. The Board applied General Plastic factors, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing and denying institution based on prior filing history and potential road-mapping concerns.
Gurcharan Singh v.The Controller Of Patents
Gurcharan Singh filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order which dismissed his Review Petition. The initial application for condonation of 150 days delay was allowed by the High Court, and the main appeal was listed for further proceedings.
M S Cothas Coffee Co. v.Ms Cotha Associates
The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
Sreevidya Kumaramkandath v.Alkaabi Est & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Sreevidya Kumaramkandath seeking the cancellation (revocation) of the registered device mark 'TEATIME' held by Alkaabi Est & Anr. The court noted the petitioner's claim that the impugned mark causes confusion due to its deceptive similarity to the petitioner's trademark. While initial procedural issues regarding party addresses were addressed, the core dispute over trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is set for further hearing.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Kulbir Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited's petition seeking cancellation of a competing trademark, 'ROGER'. The court found that the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act due to non-use by the respondent. Given that the respondent failed to appear or file a reply despite being served, the petitioner's claims regarding extensive use and goodwill were deemed unrebutted, leading to the successful cancellation of the mark.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure filed by Xiaomi entities against an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centered on the extension of deadlines for the defendants' rejoinder (Duplik) under Rule 29(d) RoP in three patent infringement proceedings before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that Xiaomi had not sufficiently demonstrated that the Local Chamber Mannheim incorrectly interpreted the Rules of Procedure or exceeded its discretionary powers.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action (UPC_CFI_164/2024) concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, applied for an order requiring the claimant, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, to provide security for legal costs. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) granted the application, finding credible evidence that Suinno's financial situation posed a real risk that any costs order would be unrecoverable, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 300,000 within one month. The Court also declared inadmissible Suinno's counter-request seeking reciprocal security from Microsoft.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Tecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics objected to the evidentiary exhibits submitted by Integrated DNA Technologies in the IPR proceeding, citing multiple Federal Rules of Evidence violations and lack of relevance as prior art.
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.