IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 61 of 159 · 4,764 total
Raj Kumar Jain / Puja Agarwal / Pravesh Narula Trading as M/s. Capital Enterprises v.Registrar of Trademark & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders across connected trademark litigation matters. Notably, the court condoned a significant delay (82 days) in filing a Written Statement to an amended plaint, allowing the case to proceed despite procedural lapses. Furthermore, directions were given for forensic examination of specific sale invoices, indicating that evidence authenticity remains a critical point of contention in this dispute.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application concerning a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the new form exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in treating cataract symptoms, which was not adequately considered by the original examiner. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Amgen AB, Amgen s.r.l., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O., Amgen N.V. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural question concerning the effective date of service of the Appellant's Statement of grounds of appeal in proceedings related to EP 3167888. The Appellant had uploaded the Statement of grounds to the Respondents' representative's German special electronic lawyer's mailbox (beA) on 27 July 2024, while the Court notified the Respondents via the Case Management System (CMS) on 29 July 2024. The Court held that under Rule 278.1 and 2 RoP, written pleadings are served by the Registry through the electronic CMS, and prior inter-party communication via another electronic system such as beA does not constitute effective service. The Court ordered that service of the Statement of grounds of appeal was effected on 29 July 2024.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 697 391 B1. The Defendant sought a confidentiality order restricting access to unredacted versions of its statement of defence and confidential exhibits, while the Claimant sought to extend access to its legal representatives and three named employees. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives and their teams, along with three employees, finding that the Defendant had not objected to the extension and had not provided reasons to limit access further.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation petitioned the PTAB challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patents based on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that combining specific prior art references, such as Froitzheim and Gan, renders the claimed photovoltaic structures predictable and obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art. This petition addresses ongoing district court litigation between the parties.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation has filed a petition challenging Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s solar cell patent based on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, such as FSF doping and gettering, are conventional and render the invention predictable when combined with existing prior art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., leading to trial on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found that Petitioner met the threshold for obviousness by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of combining prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, Li).
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-11 are unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Froitzheim, Gan, Sheats). Claim 12 was not shown to be unpatentable. The Board found the Petitioner met its burden regarding reasonable expectation of success for several claims.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness (103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that various combinations of prior art—including Froitzheim, Gan, Smith, and Li—would render the Maxeon patent obvious to a person skilled in the art.
Hanwha Solutions Corporation v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a final written decision denying Petitioner's challenge to claims 10-20 of Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.'s patent. The Board construed the key term 'metal impurities' as 'unintentional foreign metals,' rejecting arguments that intentional dopants qualified. Ultimately, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
Niranjan Arvind Gosavi v.Innovatiview India Private Limited
The plaintiffs allege that the defendant's technology infringes on their patent, which is related to a tender issued by the National Testing Agency. The plaintiffs seek to compare their patented technology with that of the defendant.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of three patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a declaration of their patent rights and an injunction against the defendants' alleged infringement.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The case involves a dispute over the infringement of several patents claimed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction and damages for the alleged infringement.
Mr. Prashant Philips v.M/s. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Indian Patent Application No. 1196/CHENP/2011, which related to using document length as a static relevance feature for ranking search results. The appellant argued that the invention provided a specific technical effect beyond general computing processes and was not merely an algorithm. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Tag Heuer S.A. v.Tinya International
Tag Heuer S.A., a luxury watchmaker, filed a suit against Tinya International and others alleging infringement of its trademarks (TAG HEUER) and copyrights related to its stylized labels. The court found in favor of Tag Heuer, granting permanent injunctions and awarding specific monetary reliefs.
M/s.Guangzhou Ocusun Ophthalmic Biotechnology Company Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents & Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of Patent Application No. 202147005676 for a crystal form of lanosterol prodrug compound. The appellant argued that the invention exhibited significant therapeutic efficacy, particularly in reducing cataract symptoms in neonatal rabbits. The High Court found that the impugned order failed to properly consider the experimental data demonstrating pharmacodynamic studies and set aside the rejection, remanding the matter for reconsideration.
Madhu Food Products v.Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Madhu Food Products, upholding the Commercial Court's initial order favoring Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd. The dispute centered on alleged trademark infringement and passing off concerning food products under the marks 'HUNK' and 'HUNT'. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellant copied the respondent's distinctive trade dress and packaging, concluding that the use of 'HUNT' was intended to take advantage of the respondent's established goodwill. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting brand identity through both trademark registration and distinct visual presentation.
Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v.Accord Distillers And Brewers Pvt Ltd
In a trademark dispute concerning the brand 'BLENDERS PRIDE', the Delhi High Court allowed Pernod Ricard India Private Limited to introduce supplementary documentation. The petitioner sought these documents to rebut the respondent's denial regarding the well-known status and earlier adoption of their trademark. This interim order facilitates the ongoing litigation, allowing both parties to present a more complete factual record before the court.
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’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 B2 hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care likely to prevail on at least one claim, based on anticipation and obviousness arguments over Schaffer, Hartley, Eller, and Garrison references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care has successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent, asserting unpatentability under §§102 and 103 based on Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success and ordered review of all challenged claims.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
The petitioner and Carver Edison, Inc. settled their inter partes review before trial, resulting in a joint motion to dismiss and termination of the proceeding. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Hecht, Thomas v.Carver Edison, Inc.
Thomas Hecht filed an IPR challenging 18 claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,445,833. The petition asserts that the patent is obvious over prior art (Hecht's own disclosure and Sullivan) when combined with known computer technology like volatility modules and containerization.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
Imperative Care, Inc. successfully challenged nine claims of INARI MEDICAL's hemostasis valve patent (11697011) at the PTAB. The Board found sufficient evidence for Petitioner’s anticipation challenge against Claim 1 after adopting a broad interpretation of the term 'filament.'
Imperative Care, Inc. v.INARI MEDICAL, INC.
The Board found that the claims were unpatentable under obviousness (Grounds 3 and 4), specifically over a combination of Schaffer's valve with Hartley's string or Eller's wire. The decision hinged on finding that a POSA would have had reason to make this substitution, leading to predictable results in hemostatic device design.
Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd v.Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Utracon Corporation Pte Ltd against its former licensee, Ucon Pt Structural System Private Limited, and associated entities. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, noting that the defendants continued to use the plaintiff's registered 'UTRACON' marks after the license expired. Furthermore, the court directed the blocking of the infringing domain name www.utraconindia.com, securing immediate protection for the plaintiff's brand.
Krbl Limited v.Rajesh Kejriwal Trading As Chemical Centre India And Anr.
In this ongoing trademark dispute, Krbl Limited sought permission to introduce several documents into the court record. The Delhi High Court allowed the admission of statutory and official records pertaining to the respondent, while rejecting other documents presented by the petitioner due to lack of relevance in the current proceedings. This order allows both parties time to prepare comprehensive written synopses detailing the chronological events and legal arguments for the final adjudication of the cancellation petition.
Play Games 24X7 Private Limited v.Www10Xbettcom & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff's application to implead additional infringing websites, domains, and their registrars in a suit concerning trademark infringement. Furthermore, the court extended the existing ad-interim injunction to these newly added defendants. The order imposes strict restraints on the new parties, prohibiting them from using the 'MY11CIRCLE' mark or similar names, while also directing domain name registrars to suspend/block infringing domains and disclose subscriber information.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.Vishnu Enterprises & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-litigation mediation, while crucially allowing the plaintiff to proceed with urgent interim relief. Specifically, the court authorized search and seizure operations through Local Commissioners to protect the registered trademarks and copyrights associated with the 'HELL' brand, paving the way for robust enforcement against alleged infringers.
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.