IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 48 of 159 · 4,764 total
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
Waterotor Energy Technologies Inc v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking to set aside a deemed abandonment notice issued by Respondent No. 2 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202017037539. After reviewing submissions and noting the lack of reply from respondent no. 2, the court directed both parties to file their short notes of submissions.
Sanjay Kumar v.Rattan Lal Garg & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Kumar, who holds the registered trademark 'CHAND' for mustard oil. The court found that the defendants were deceptively using the mark 'R.L. CHAND' on identical products and packaging, causing potential confusion among consumers. This preliminary order restrains the defendants from continuing to use the infringing mark until the full trial.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This appeal concerned the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 2479680, owned by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and exclusively licensed to Sling TV L.L.C. The appellants, AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYlo Freesites Ltd, challenged an order of the Local Chamber Mannheim dated April 5, 2024. The Court of Appeal clarified that the UPC has international jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and Article 71b(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation when the European patent has effect in at least one contracting member state and alleged damage may occur there, including through internet-based activities accessible in that territory.
Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L v.Respondent
This order concerns a confidentiality protection request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure filed by the defendants in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants had submitted three third-party license agreements with their rejoinder and sought access restrictions exceeding the previously established confidentiality regime. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided by Prof. Dr. Tochtermann, issued an order with access restrictions corresponding to the existing confidentiality regime, falling short of the defendants' newly requested restrictions for two of the license agreements.
Somalogic Operating Co., INC. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Somalogic Operating Co. appealed the Assistant Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'CARDIOVASCULAR RISK EVENT PREDICTION AND USES THEREOF'. The core dispute centered on whether the claimed invention qualified as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court found that the appellant was not given a proper opportunity to argue against the classification and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The Motor And General Finance Limited v.A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of The Motor And General Finance Limited against A.S. Enterprises, Partnership Firm regarding trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's use of 'MGF INDIA' was phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established trademark 'MGF'. Given the prima facie case for infringement and the risk of irreparable loss, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v.Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a suit and a rectification petition following a successful mediation process between the parties. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr., successfully secured a decree against Ms. Sunita Devi & Anr. based on a settlement agreement dated May 22, 2024. Crucially, the respondent was directed to withdraw their trademark 'RAKARNI GYPSUM' (Registration No. 3618245) and undertake not to commit any acts of infringement or passing off related to similar marks in Class 19.
M.K. Srinivasan And Another v.Chemsol India And Another
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M.K. Srinivasan And Another against Chemsol India And Another, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court recognized that the plaintiffs possess significant goodwill associated with their 'TAURUS' trademarks used for testing and measurement instruments. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH regarding European Patent No. 3 024 163. The plaintiff sought to extend the lawsuit to include OTECH Germany GmbH as an additional defendant, arguing that OTECH had taken over the smartphone sales activities previously handled by OROPE and had already been found liable for patent infringement by the Mannheim Regional Court in June 2023. The defendants opposed the extension as inadmissible and untimely, contending the plaintiff could and should have sued OTECH directly or filed the extension request much earlier.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
ORDER Of the President of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Issued on 2/09/2024 APPLICANT: (in the main proceedings, respondent in the procedural application) Valeo Electrification, 14 avenue des Béguines, 95800 Cergy, France, represented by the President Thierry Kalanquin, wit
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care have settled their dispute over a continuous glucose monitoring patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites a confidential settlement agreement and the lack of any Board decision on the merits.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s preliminary response argues that Juniper’s obviousness grounds fail because the cited references do not teach a “home gateway” and Li‑2 is not a printed publication, urging the PTAB to deny institution of the IPR.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper seeks to invalidate Monarch’s ’845 patent covering IPv4/IPv6 transition mechanisms, arguing the claims are obvious over Ananda, Wetterwald, and RFC4380 and requesting the PTAB to institute an IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network filed a Director Review request after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications’ 8,631,450 patent. The petitioner claims the Board misapplied obviousness law by demanding a specific benefit, contrary to precedent, and seeks reversal.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics, its U.S. affiliate and Harman reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom and Abbott Diabetes Care settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,298,056 covering continuous glucose monitoring technology. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board granted termination without a final written decision.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s infringement suit against Cisco over Patent 8,451,845 was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, ending the dispute before the PTAB could institute an IPR.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
The USPTO denied Dish Network's request for Director Review of the decision that had previously denied institution of its IPR against Entropic Communications' broadband patent. The denial leaves the original institution decision intact.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks challenges the validity of Monarch Networking Solutions' '845 patent, asserting that claims related to IPv6/IPv4 transition and NAT are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references (Li, Li-2, Paunikar, Wu) to demonstrate the lack of nonobviousness in networking technology.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Entropic Communications' patent 8363681, targeting network synchronization and ranging methods. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art standards like IEEE802.3ah, Shvodian, Frei, and Ovadia. This institutional decision sets up a detailed examination of technical obviousness in wireless communications.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C. challenged Entropic Communications LLC's patent (8631450) in a Petition, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Board found institution warranted based on favorable application of the Fintiv and Advanced Bionics tests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,173,054 owned by InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (Sections 102/103). The petitioner argues that the patent lacks written description support for its method using Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi transfer, asserting prior art reference Forutanpour anticipates or renders the claims obvious.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
Microsoft Corporation initiated an IPR challenging the '933 patent claims, arguing that they are anticipated or obvious over prior art references like Forutanpour. The petitioner asserts lack of written description support in ancestor applications for methods involving Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi protocol switching. This petition raises key issues regarding both anticipation and enablement under 102 and 103.
Dexcom, Inc. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
Dexcom, Inc. filed a Petition challenging claims 1, 13, and 29 of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent (US 11298056). The challenger asserts that these claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references like Patel-2009 and Paradigm® REAL-Time. This petition also argues against discretionary denial, asserting the arguments are new and diligent.
Juniper Networks, Inc v.Monarch Networking Solutions LLC
Juniper Networks successfully petitioned to challenge Monarch Networking Solutions' patent on grounds of obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings against claims 1 and 5-8.
DISH Network L.L.C. et al. v.Entropic Communications LLC
DISH Network L.L.C.'s attempt to invalidate 40 claims of Entropic Communications' patent (8363681) was denied by the PTAB. The Board found insufficient evidence that the claimed clock synchronization methods were obvious over prior art, including IEEE802.3ah and Shvodian.
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.