IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 218 · 6,517 total
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of Johns Hopkins' ’201 patent covering low‑molecular‑weight FAP‑α imaging agents, arguing obviousness, lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging ParkerVision’s 9,118,528 patent covering down‑conversion receiver technology, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition challenging 26 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable heart‑monitor patent, asserting obviousness over Jensen, Kroll and other prior art. The petition argues no discretionary denial factors apply and seeks cancellation of the claims.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 25 claims of Welch Allyn’s wearable ECG monitor patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto has filed an IPR petition challenging AbTis’s U.S. Patent 11,896,675 covering site‑specific antibody‑drug conjugates. The petitioner alleges lack of written description, improper priority, and that all 13 claims are anticipated or obvious over several pre‑grant publications and conference disclosures. The petition seeks cancellation of every claim.
Realtek Semiconductor Corp. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
Realtek has filed an IPR petition challenging claim 14 of ParkerVision’s ‘177 patent, asserting obviousness over Tayloe, a TI multiplexer datasheet, Razavi, and Uzunoglu references. The petition argues that the prior art predates the patent’s critical date and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and other carriers have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of a 5G preemption patent owned by Pegasus Wireless. The petition relies on obviousness over the Kuchibhotla and Chen publications and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
Verizon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate a 5G resource‑allocation patent owned by Pegasus Wireless, arguing the claims are obvious over prior‑art standards and publications. The petition requests the PTAB to institute the IPR and cancel all 20 challenged claims.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE challenged The Johns Hopkins University's claims regarding FAP-α targeting moieties based on obviousness and patentability issues (103/112). The Board instituted the PGR, finding that the claims face significant challenges related to enablement and indefiniteness.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v.AbTis Co., Ltd.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against AbTis Co., Ltd.'s patent (11896675) covering Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs). The Board found sufficient evidence for institution on multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness regarding claim 11.
Neeraj Jain v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the writ petition filed by Neeraj Jain against the Controller General of Patents. Crucially, the court condoned a 36-day delay in filing the petition itself. The core matter involves challenging an order that declared the petitioner's design application abandoned due to a belatedly filed Power of Attorney. Notice has been issued, setting the stage for further arguments on the merits of the abandonment claim.
Phonepe Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.AGF Finlease India Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Phonepe Pvt Ltd against AGF Finlease India Ltd and others. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks like 'PHONEPEY' and 'PHONEPEY LOAN,' leading to infringement, passing off, and dilution of PhonePe's goodwill. Consequently, the court ordered a restraint on the use of these marks across various platforms and directed the suspension of specific domains and social media accounts.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Tilaknagar Industries Limited & Ors
In a suit concerning alleged trademark, copyright, and passing off infringement, the Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders. Crucially, regarding the interim injunction application, the court accepted the defendants' commitment to immediately stop using the disputed label on new products as of December 26, 2024. This temporary relief is subject to the defendants exhausting their existing stock bearing the impugned label, which they must detail in an affidavit.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited v.Two Star Media Private Limited
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of a deceptively similar trademark (LIVE TIMES) registered by Two Star Media Private Limited. The petitioner argued that its own trademarks, 'TIMES' and its family, are prior, extensively used since 1943, and highly reputed. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies within four weeks, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on trademark infringement and similarity.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.Wipro Gas Service & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited against Wipro Gas Service & Anr. The plaintiff sought protection for its well-known trademark 'WIPRO,' which it alleged was being infringed and used deceptively by the defendants. Given that the defendant failed to appear despite service, the court found a prima facie case existed, leading to an immediate restraint order on the use of the identical mark.
Rahul Mishra & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of fashion designer Rahul Mishra, restraining defendants from using or dealing in goods deceptively similar to his registered trademarks and trade names. The court also directed the defendant operating the website www.rahudress.com to immediately suspend the domain name and disclose complete details of the primary infringing entity (Defendant No. 1). This order protects both trademark rights and copyright/design rights related to Mishra's luxury apparel.
Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. v.John Doe/ Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saif Hong Kong Holdings Ltd. against John Doe and others. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents. Crucially, the court permitted specific service methods—such as email communication via designated Grievance Officers—for defendants located outside India or those identified as DNRs (Defendant Not Represented), while also exempting the plaintiff from advance service upon Defendant No. 1 due to the urgent nature of the relief sought.
Insulet Corporation v.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. (UPC_CFI_380/2024)
This procedural order concerns an application for costs filed by Insulet Corporation against Menarini Diagnostics following the rejection of Menarini's intervention request in provisional measures proceedings. The Central Division Milan ruled that Insulet, as the successful party opposing the intervention, was entitled to recover its legal costs from Menarini, ordering Menarini to pay €1,764 by 8 January 2025.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & OROPE Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patents Nos. 2 197 132, 3 024 163, and 2 584 854. The parties agreed to withdraw their respective actions and counterclaims, with each side bearing its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and granted a 40 percent partial reimbursement of court fees under Rule 370.9(b)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This order concerns procedural matters following the Local Chamber Munich's August 30, 2024 decision invalidating European Patent No. 1 838 002 and dismissing the infringement action. After Avago filed an appeal and Tesla filed a cost determination application, both parties sought to withdraw their respective applications. The court granted the withdrawal of the cost determination application and ordered each party to bear their own costs in that proceeding.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Microsoft Corporation filed an application before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court seeking protection of confidential information under Rule 262 RoP regarding Exhibit BP 01, a settlement offer document. The court granted the application, ruling that while the document was already known to Suinno and did not require restriction of access between the parties under Rule 262A RoP, its original confidential version should not be available to the public due to the confidential nature of certain information contained therein.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, addressing a request by Defendants 3, 5 to 8 (Memodo GmbH, Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, and Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico) to classify certain information as confidential. The court found that while the formal requirements of R. 262A.3 RoP were not met, the request under R. 262.2 RoP was admissible. The court classified the green-shaded passages in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, along with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4, as confidential trade secrets relating to revenue, profit, and sales figures of Defendants 7 and 8.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
TIRU, holder of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation and associated process, filed an ex parte request before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of Paris) for the preservation of evidence and a site inspection against VALINEA ENERGIE. TIRU alleged that a furnace supplied by MAGUIN to VALINEA's Montbéliard energy recovery plant reproduced the patented invention. The court granted the requested measures, ordering a detailed description, seizure of technical documentation, and digital evidence preservation, subject to a €10,000 security deposit.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in proceedings involving European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court granted confidentiality protection for green-shaded financial information (revenue, profit, and sales figures) submitted by Defendants 1, 2, and 4 in their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for Revocation, while rejecting the request for protection of grey-shaded technical information that had already been submitted in parallel proceedings before the District Court of Mannheim without confidentiality measures.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration installation, sought an ex parte order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court for the preservation of evidence and site inspection against MAGUIN SAS. TIRU alleged that MAGUIN had supplied a furnace to VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary) that infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the appointment of an expert to conduct the seizure at MAGUIN's premises, subject to a €10,000 guarantee and execution by January 17, 2025.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft sought discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a Court of First Instance order that granted Suinno leave to reduce its damages claim in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal dismissed Microsoft's request, holding that Suinno's application constituted an unconditional limitation of its claim under Rule 263.3 RoP, which must always be granted, and that Microsoft's interests and right of defence were sufficiently protected.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung successfully challenged all 16 claims of Molecular Rebar Design’s ’282 patent covering carbon‑nanotube binders for batteries. The Board found the claims obvious over prior art and adopted a construction that “discrete” does not require non‑attachment.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of five IPR petitions, arguing the new ‘settled expectations’ rule was applied retroactively and violates precedent. The petitioner contends the rule would burden the PTAB and harm patent quality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Molecular Rebar Design, LLC
Samsung’s IPR challenge to U.S. Patent 8,968,924, covering lithium‑ion battery compositions with discrete carbon nanotubes, was rejected. The Board found no obviousness for any of the five challenged claims, leaving the patent intact.
iRhythm, Inc. v.Welch Allyn, Inc. et al.
iRhythm challenges the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its five IPR petitions, arguing the new “settled expectations” rule is retroactive and conflicts with Board precedent. The petition seeks vacatur of the denial and institution of the IPRs.
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.