IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 55 of 159 · 4,764 total
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board relied heavily on the combination of Ellis and Spivey to establish obviousness for Claim 1, particularly regarding low-latency data delivery via uniquely addressable event sockets.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 unpatentable over a combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, concluding that the claimed live video streaming system was obvious to a POSA. The Board specifically held that Spivey's topic queues satisfy the definition of an 'event socket.'
House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors. v.House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, House Of Diagnostics LLP, against House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case of idea infringement, noting that both parties operate in the highly similar field of diagnostic services and their marks are glaringly similar. The defendant was restrained from using 'House of Pathology' in connection with its diagnostic activities, pending further consideration of the main suit.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Kalra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.
Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)
In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
M/S Shree Vallabh Metals v.Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns an appeal by several Apple entities against an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) dated June 18, 2024, which rejected a request to change the language of proceedings to the language in which European Patent EP 2 263 098 was granted. The order addresses a Rule 36 application filed by the respondent Ona Patents SL, seeking to disregard the appellants' reply filed on August 15, 2024, or alternatively to be granted an extension to respond. The court reasoned that under Rule 239.2 RoP, the written procedure in appeal proceedings is concluded when the judge summons the parties to oral hearing, and any Rule 36 request for further submissions must be filed before that date.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation filed an application for discretionary review with the Court of Appeal challenging an order of the Court of First Instance (Central Division Paris) dated 2 July 2024, which had rejected Microsoft's request to declare Suinno's patent infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173 as manifestly inadmissible under Rule 361 RoP. The Court of Appeal addressed whether such an order denying a Rule 361 request is admissible for appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, and whether it qualifies as a case management order requiring issuance by a panel. The standing judge issued the order addressing these procedural questions.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning an application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. The Aylo companies (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd) sought review of a Local Division Mannheim order dated July 22, 2024, which had rejected their request to exclude three in-house counsel of the Dish and Sling companies from a confidentiality ring established under Rule 262A RoP. The Local Division found that the three US-based in-house counsel, who are patent attorneys admitted before the USPTO, were sufficiently reliable to be granted access to confidential information. The Aylo companies requested the Court of Appeal to admit the appeal against this order.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
1 Division locale de Paris UPC_CFI_358/2023 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 21/08/2024 DEMANDEUR HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P 10300 Energy Drive, Spring, Harris County, TX, 77389, USA - 77389 - Harris County - US Rep
Ballinno B.V. v.Respondent
Ballinno B.V. requested that the Central Division stay revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of its provisional measures application by the Local Division Hamburg. The court denied the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP, and that the proceedings must be conducted to allow the final oral hearing at first instance within one year.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request to Biofrontera in IPR2024-01312, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence. The petitioner must respond within five business days.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera's IPR challenge against Sun Pharmaceutical regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Lundahl and Larsen, focusing on combining prior art elements for flexible device design.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Archidply Industries Limited v.Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archidply Industries Limited against Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited. While granting minor procedural exemptions and directing the transfer of court fees, the Court primarily focused on moving the main dispute forward. The matter was formally registered as a suit for infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and subsequently referred to the High Court's Mediation Centre to explore an out-of-court settlement.
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, INTERLUX, UAB, SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, MERIL GMBH, SORMEDICA, UAB, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ, VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB, MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED, SORMEDICA, UAB, MERIL GMBH, INTERLUX, UAB v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
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.