IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 51 of 159 · 4,764 total
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed an earlier decision concerning a patent application related to insect control methods. The court also addressed two interlocutory applications: one granting exemption from filing originals, and another condoning a 13-day delay in filing the main appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application titled 'Auto-Selection of Media Files.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed method for automatically selecting media files based on user preference (confidence level) was non-patentable under Section 3(k). The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that the patent be proceeded for grant as amended.
M/S Avon Automotive And Ors v.M/S Avon Cycles Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's appeal and rectification petition against Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement between the parties, which stipulated that Lumix would not object to Panasonic's trademark application for 'LUMIX'. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar of Trademarks' previous refusal, allowing Panasonic's trademark registration and directing the limitation of goods in Lumix's existing registration.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.
Merck Kgaa v.Bharat Patel
Merck Kgaa successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Bharat Patel in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Merck's trademark 'MERCK' is well-known and granted immediate relief, preventing the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or names. This ruling underscores the strong protection afforded to established, globally recognized trademarks under Indian law.
Sanjay Mehra v.Jagdish Choudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the trademark 'SUPERON', against Jagdish Choudhary. The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting an identical mark for allied goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. This protective order prevents the defendant from using the disputed marks until the final hearing.
M/S Nuchem Limited Earlier Known As Nuchem Plastics Limited v.M/S Archit Nuwood Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Nuchem Limited and Archit Nuwood Industries. The court granted the defendant an extension of time to file a rejoinder, contingent upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- in costs. Furthermore, the court scheduled both the injunction application (I.A. 7713/2023) and the trademark-related application (I.A. 11949/2023 under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) for consideration on July 31, 2024.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
Adobe Inc. v.Jaffe, Jonathan
Adobe seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for IPR2024‑01352, arguing the Board’s claim construction lacks evidentiary support and that the Fintiv discretionary factors were misapplied. The Patent Owner requests denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research jointly filed a motion to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and terminate the IPR proceeding.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,948,968 before the Board instituted a trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential and the proceeding was terminated.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have entered a settlement covering U.S. Patent 8,588,110. The parties jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep the settlement agreement confidential and separate from the IPR record.
Apple Inc. v.NL Giken Inc.
Apple and NL Giken filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024‑01277 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences' request to file a motion for reconsideration of the institution decision in IPR2024-01315. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and noted that the deadline for Director Review had passed. The institution of the IPR therefore remains in effect.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research entered a settlement that led to a joint motion to terminate the IPR over patent 8,588,110. The Board granted the motion, dismissing the proceeding and treating the settlement documents as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Headwater Research LLC
Samsung and Headwater Research have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,588,110 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under the statutory termination provisions.
BOE Technology Group Co., LTD v.Optronic Sciences, LLC
Samsung Display and BOE have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR concerning OLED display modules, citing a confidential settlement that resolves all issues. The Board is asked to dismiss the case under statutory provisions for settlement.
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.