IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 58 of 159 · 4,764 total
Neela Film Productions Private Limited v.Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in favor of Neela Film Productions Private Limited (Plaintiff) in its copyright and trademark infringement suit against Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors. (Defendants). The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowed the plaintiff to serve advance copies on a specific defendant despite lack of contact details, and directed that the plaint be formally registered as a commercial suit. These orders pave the way for the substantive trial concerning the alleged infringement of the popular show 'Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited v.Mr Jayesh Dilip Mehta & Anr.
Tanvi Fitness Private Limited filed multiple applications seeking an injunction against Mr. Jayesh Dilip Mehta and others, alleging that the respondents were communicating with e-commerce platforms to falsely claim infringement of their trademark 'MYFITNESS'. The petitioner argues that the respondents' actions are causing product delisting on major online marketplaces. While the respondent opposes the maintainability of the applications, citing different sections of the Trade Marks Act, the court has ordered notice and set a date for further arguments.
Lv Bhavani Sankar v.Gemini Edibles And Fats India Pvt Ltd.
The Madras High Court addressed a Transfer Review Petition filed by Lv Bhavani Sankar against a previous rectification order concerning Trademark 3830617. The petitioner sought to keep the trademark registered. However, the court noted that the arguments in the current petition were identical to another pending petition and closed (T)Rev.Pet(IPD)/2/2024 without issuing a specific ruling on costs.
Havells India Limited v.Hetram Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against Hetram Sharma & Ors. regarding the unauthorized use of its registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendants' adoption of similar marks ('R3 REO 3X') was intended to ride upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation in the electrical goods market. Furthermore, the court permitted a local commission to search the defendant's premises and seize infringing materials.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Respondent
The Claimant, Network System Technologies LLC, sued four Defendants for patent infringement regarding European patent EP 1 552 669. By letter dated 1 July 2024, the Claimant declared a partial withdrawal of the action against Defendants 1 and 2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH) following a settlement. The Local Division Munich held that Rule 265 RoP applies to partial subjective withdrawals of action, permitted the withdrawal with the consent of Defendants 1 and 2, and ordered that each party bear its own costs as agreed.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World challenges the USPTO’s denial of its IPR on a disposable vaporizer patent, arguing material error and improper use of the Fintiv memo. The petitioner seeks institution of the review.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World and SV3 seek Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings’ ‘202 patent covering disposable vaporizer devices. The petition argues the Board misapplied the Advanced Bionics framework and improperly limited its review to two pages of the petition.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
3Shape and Medit have filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under patent‑law confidentiality provisions.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,223,601 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the Board’s guidance favoring settlement.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,160,466. The Board terminated the proceeding without a merits decision, treating the settlement agreement as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings, including the IPR covering patent 10,785,759. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreements as confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics and ASUS Technology Licensing have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,104,658 and filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority and public‑policy reasons for ending the proceeding.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
RAI Strategic Holdings defends its ’202 patent against Demand Vape's IPR challenge, asserting the Board correctly applied Advanced Bionics precedent and that Fintiv factors favor denial due to an overlapping ITC case.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems and Croga Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,738,368. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding, and the Board granted the termination.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion and K. Mizra filed a joint request to treat their settlement agreement as confidential and to dismiss the pending IPR. The motion cites statutory confidentiality protections.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus filed a joint request to have their IPR settlement materials treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The motion seeks to keep the settlement separate from the public file and limit access to government agencies or parties with good cause.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon, its affiliates and Twitch filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-01161 after reaching a confidential settlement with NL Giken, ending the dispute over U.S. Patent 9,319,615.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions PTAB to invalidate RAI Strategic's 2024 electronic‑cigarette patent, arguing lack of written description and obviousness over Takeuchi, Kim, Pienemann and Susa. The petition seeks institution and opposes discretionary denial.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
Ecto World petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,925,202 covering an electrically‑powered vaping article, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over Takeuchi, Pienemann, Kim and Susa references and lack written‑description support.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging all 16 claims of Croga Innovations’ ’601 patent covering sandboxed computing environments, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and opposing discretionary denial.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1 and 2 of Croga Innovations’ VoIP codec‑switching patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and asserting that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,785,759 owned by ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. The challenge asserts that the claims related to numerology bandwidth determination in wireless systems are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This initial filing details multiple grounds of obviousness, combining various prior art references including Noh, Tooher, Islam, Jiang, and Miao.
3Shape A/S et al. v.Medit Corporation et al.
Petitioners, including 3Shape A/S, have filed an IPR challenging the validity of Medit Corporation's patent claims related to 3D scanning and stitching technology. The central argument asserts that the claimed invention is obvious over prior art references Kriveshko and Zhang when combining global motion optimization techniques. This challenges the scope of a major patent in the computer vision market.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging K. Mizra LLC's patent covering digital signal processing and calibration methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed technology is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on a combination of multiple prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied the institution of a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging claims related to electrically-powered aerosol generators. The Board found that the petitioner failed to meet its burden of showing a likelihood of unpatentability, despite narrowing claim construction on 'smoking article' to devices containing tobacco.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems successfully petitioned the PTAB, leading to the institution of its IPR against Croga Innovations Ltd. regarding VoIP bandwidth management claims. The Board found that Cisco demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of establishing obviousness over combinations of prior art references.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., citing efficiency concerns. The Board found that despite arguments regarding material error and prior art relevance, denying institution served the integrity of the system given the parallel ITC investigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Director granted review in an IPR case (IPR2024-01280), vacating the denial of institution. The proceeding is remanded for parties to clarify arguments regarding discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) and parallel ITC litigation.
Ecto World, LLC d/b/a Demand Vape et al. v.RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al.
The PTAB denied Ecto World's petition to institute IPR against RAI Strategic Holdings regarding a tobacco-containing smoking article, citing the petitioner failed to demonstrate material error despite using previously presented prior art.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against K. Mizra LLC's patent, arguing that the technology for high-speed digital communication channel calibration was obvious over various prior art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
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.