IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 59 of 159 · 4,764 total
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.NL GIKEN INCORPORATED
Amazon's IPR petition against NL GIKEN regarding a TV viewing experience patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed on all 16 challenged claims, focusing heavily on obviousness over Cooper and Slotznick.
Natco Pharma Ltd. v.M/s. Schering Corporation
Natco Pharma Ltd filed an Original Petition (Patents) seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No.202128 against M/s. Schering Corporation and the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The court observed that the term of the patent had expired on 06.10.2018, rendering the petition infructuous.
Ashokbhai Manjibhai Sankharava trading as M/s. Unolex Aquatech v.M/S. Trishul Pump
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commercial Court rejecting applications seeking exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff had filed four suits for patent infringement (No. 388576) but failed to demonstrate a genuine need for urgent interim relief.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
Akzo Nobel Coatings International B. v.Berger Paints India Limited and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court disposed of the appeal concerning the trademark 'POLYDUR'. The court noted that Respondent No. 1 had submitted a letter requesting the withdrawal of the trademark application (No. 1949642). Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, to process and pass the appropriate orders for the complete withdrawal of the mark within three weeks.
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of M/S Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute between Vijay Baweja and Ajay Baweja to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner sought rectification of their 'AIRGOLD' trademark and cancellation of the respondent's similar mark, 'AIR GOLD (DEVICE)', both registered in Class 12. This move indicates the court is encouraging parties to resolve complex IP conflicts through alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with a full trial.
DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o., a member of the public, for access to the pleadings and evidence in an ongoing patent infringement case under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying infringement action was brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717, which relates to a color and light mixing collecting optic for outdoor LED variable traffic signs. The order establishes the legal framework for balancing public access interests against the protection of confidential information, personal data, and the integrity of the proceedings.
TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed preliminary issues in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 863 637. The court dealt with the Defendants' request to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence, which was based on the Claimant's erroneous submission of the AVC standard as Exhibit BP 6 instead of the intended HEVC standard. The order also addressed questions regarding the authority of representatives acting before the court and the proper filing of requests.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd v.Kanchan Singh
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their trademark 'KENT' and registered design no. 312406 related to water purifiers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants are selling products that are identical or deceptively similar to their registered designs.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court allowed exemption and set notice, granting both parties time to file their respective written synopses or rejoinders.
M/S Krbl Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. And Another
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S Krbl Limited to file amendments and introduce crucial subsequent documentation in its ongoing suit against J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff successfully sought to place on record the registration certificate, legal proceedings, and official orders confirming 'INDIA GATE' as a well-known trademark. This procedural order allows the case to proceed with updated evidence relevant to the core dispute.
Dunar Foods Limited v.Ankit Vats Trading As Avjk Foods Llp & Anr.
Dunar Foods Limited initiated proceedings seeking the cancellation of the registered trademark 'Nawazish' through a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court issued notice to all parties and set forth detailed timelines for filing replies and written synopses. This order marks a procedural step in the ongoing litigation aimed at challenging the validity of the registered mark.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, primarily on obviousness grounds involving hemostasis valve features.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,697,011 hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one claim and ordered the trial to proceed.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790 and jointly request that the settlement be kept confidential, effectively moving to terminate the proceeding.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs have reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review of Roku’s ’790 patent. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. §317 and Board practice allowing termination when no merits have been decided.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku and VideoLabs settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,233,790, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before institution.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of Charge Fusion’s electric‑vehicle charging patent, arguing they are obvious over existing EV charging systems and GUIs.
Tesla Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla has filed a petition for inter partes review of Charge Fusion’s U.S. Patent 11,631,987, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering EV charging systems and user interfaces.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care seeks an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 catheter‑hemostasis valve patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Schaffer and related references. The petition argues the preamble term “aspiration” is non‑limiting and requests the Board to institute the review.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Charter Communications has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 21 claims of U.S. Patent 11,050,654, alleging obviousness over six prior‑art references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Roku, Inc. v.VideoLabs, Inc.
Roku has filed an IPR petition challenging VideoLabs’ 7,233,790 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over the Chatani and Mulligan disclosures and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
Imperative Care challenges Inari Medical's hemostasis valve patents under grounds of anticipation and obviousness. The Board construed the key term 'filament' to require flexibility, which influenced its initial assessment of the claims. Institution was granted, setting the stage for a full trial on infringement and validity.
Tesla, Inc. v.Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla successfully challenged Charge Fusion Technologies' patent claims in a PTAB institution decision. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine prior art references, rendering numerous independent and dependent claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This outcome significantly weakens the asserted patent portfolio for Charge Fusion.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR against Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment regarding network performance patents. The Board cited the proximity of a parallel district court trial date to the statutory deadline as a key factor favoring denial.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc.
The Board found that the claims were obvious over prior art references by combining known features to achieve a predictable result. Despite initial disputes over claim construction, the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient motivation for combining specific prior art elements.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Netlist’s ’595 memory‑module patent succeeded; all 24 claims were found obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and thus unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Netlist, Inc.
The PTAB instituted an IPR against Netlist’s ’218 memory‑module patent after finding Samsung’s petition showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petitioned for rehearing of a USPTO Director Review decision across several IPRs. The Board denied the rehearing requests, leaving the prior institution decisions in place.
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.