IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 62 of 159 · 4,764 total
Ms Allanasons Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the matter concerning Ms Allanasons Private Limited versus The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. This interim order scheduled both associated commercial IP disputes (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024) for a hearing on August 29, 2025. The court's directive indicates the ongoing procedural progression of these trademark matters.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters), Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Daedalus Prime LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against five defendants, including Chinese and Taiwanese entities, seeking to serve the Statement of claim on the Chinese Xiaomi companies via Xiaomi Germany and on MediaTek (Taiwan) via MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 271.5(a) RoP. The Local Division dismissed the request, holding that service must follow Rules 273 and 274 RoP. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected Daedalus's appeal, confirming that group companies in Contracting Member States cannot automatically be treated as statutory seats, central administrations, or principal places of business of defendants domiciled in China or Taiwan, and that Hague Convention methods (for China) and diplomatic/consular channels (for Taiwan) must first be attempted.
NEC Corporation v.TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., , TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o
NEC Corporation filed a patent infringement action against several TCL entities concerning European Patent EP 3 057 321 before the Local Division Munich. The sole issue addressed in this order was whether proper service had been effected on Defendant 2 (TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.), which is domiciled in China. The Court held that service was validly completed on 11 May 2024, accepting the defendant's own statement as proof of service.
Orbisk B.V. v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_327/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : Not provided Orbisk B.V. (Defendant) - Kanaalweg 29 A - 3526 KM - Utrecht - NL Statement of
Manfred Sauer GmbH v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a request by the defendants (Applicants) to dispense with translation of German-language exhibits filed in patent infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 2 911 727. The Court dismissed the request, holding that the panel as a whole lacked sufficient German language skills and that the number, scope, and nature of the eleven exhibits made it disproportionate to waive the translation requirement. The Applicants had already filed machine translations as an auxiliary measure, thereby complying with Rule 7(1) RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for re-trial (Wiederaufnahme des Verfahrens) filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against NanoString Technologies. The re-trial application challenged the Court of Appeal's earlier order of February 26, 2024, which had overturned a first-instance interim injunction in favor of 10x and ordered 10x to bear the costs. The application alleged fundamental procedural errors, including violation of the right to be heard and Article 6 ECHR. The Court of Appeal addressed key principles regarding the interpretation of its own reasoning, the non-reviewability of evidentiary assessment in re-trial proceedings, and the legal basis for cost allocation in summary proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_41/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in the main proceedings related to European Patent 3 780 758 delivered on 06/08/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim: 30/01/2024 Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Defendant
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Amazon Services Europe S.à r.l. concerning European Patent EP 3 339 920 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Following an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, confirmed the parties' cost-sharing arrangement, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Dong Yang Pc, Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Dong Yang Pc, Inc filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The core dispute revolves around the dismissal of their patent application based on a cited document (D5), which the appellant claims is no longer active and that the respondent illegally raised the issue of Common General Knowledge.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.
Oracle International Corporation v.Cis It Solutions Pvt Ltd
Oracle International Corporation challenged an Arbitral Award that denied it the transfer of the domain name www.exadata.in, despite Oracle holding registered trademarks for 'EXADATA.' The Delhi High Court found that the arbitrator failed to appreciate the evidence and suggested the award was contrary to public policy. While the court did not overturn the award immediately, it initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the respondent, signaling a significant legal challenge to the initial domain dispute resolution.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint in a suit concerning trademark and passing off infringement. The amendment was sought because a previously pending trademark application (Z GOLD) had subsequently been granted registration by the Registrar of Trademarks. Both parties consented to the change, allowing the plaintiff to incorporate this new registered right into the ongoing litigation.
Micro Labs Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Micro Labs Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 247381, while Bristol-Myers Squibb Ireland Unlimited Company sought permanent injunction against Micro Labs for infringing the patent using 'Apixaban' and 'APIVAS'. The parties successfully negotiated a settlement agreement in mediation.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
The defendant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court sought security for costs of EUR 400,000, arguing that the Israeli claimant's foreign domicile created enforcement risks and that the claimant initiated proceedings to cause material harm. The claimant, part of the PepsiCo group, opposed the request, citing its financial strength and the applicability of the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the request, holding that the mere location of the claimant's registered office in Israel and unsubstantiated doubts about compliance with a future cost decision did not justify ordering security for costs.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH for the release of a security deposit under Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously granted Ortovox an ex parte interim injunction on December 11, 2023, against Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH concerning EP 3 466 498 B1, requiring security of EUR 500,000 in the form of either a deposit or a bank guarantee. After Ortovox initially deposited the amount and later also provided a bank guarantee, creating double security, the court addressed whether the original deposit could be released.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1 in an infringement action brought by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH, with Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. intervening. The order addresses the plaintiff's application under Rule 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure for leave to file a further amendment of the patent, following an initial amendment request filed on March 23, 2024 in response to a counterclaim for revocation by the second defendant. The court held that the timing of the decision on admissibility of a further amendment request lies within the discretion of the court, and that the two-month response period under Rule 32.1 RoP does not apply to subsequent amendment requests under Rule 30.2 RoP.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed the service of a patent infringement statement of claim on Xiaomi entities located in China and Hong Kong. It held that service cannot be effected merely through a sister Xiaomi company domiciled in a contracting member state, as such a group company cannot automatically be treated as the defendant's registered seat, head office, principal place of business, or a place of business under Rule 271.5(a). The Court further held that service attempts under the Hague Service Convention pursuant to Rule 274.1(a)(ii) must generally be pursued before resorting to alternative service methods under Rule 275.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,981,350 B1, prompting the PTAB to terminate the IPR before it was instituted.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR No. 2024‑00898, seeking confidential treatment of their settlement agreement under 35 U.S.C. §317. The parties argue the settlement resolves all issues concerning patent 10,981,350.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom filed a joint request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking statutory provisions for business‑confidential treatment.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00861 covering DexCom’s glucose‑monitor patent. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
Recycled Plastics Industries and Tangent Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00898 after reaching a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’350 patent covering wood‑plastic composite technology.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,801,541, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Recycled Plastics Industries, LLC et al. v.Tangent Technologies LLC et al.
A petition challenges a polymer board patent by asserting that the claimed simulated wood-grained structure is obvious. The petitioner relies on combining multiple prior art references, including StaMixCo and Zumbrunnen, to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
Ericsson Inc. et al. filed an Initial Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against XR Communications LLC's patent related to wireless communications. The petition challenges key claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, asserting that the technology is obvious over prior art references Trigui and Rudrapatna. The grounds focus on the predictability of adopting a 'cross' connect approach for MIMO transceivers.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC failed its IPR challenge against Shoals Technologies Group regarding photovoltaic connectors. The PTAB denied the petition, finding that the combination of prior art references lacked sufficient motivation to render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Voltage, LLC et al. v.Shoals Technologies Group, LLC
Voltage, LLC's IPR petition against Shoals Technologies Group, LLC was denied by the PTAB, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim. The dispute centered on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) regarding solar power interconnection systems.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB instituted trial in an IPR proceeding concerning MIMO/Beamforming antenna technology. The Board found sufficient evidence to suggest that several challenged claims are unpatentable over the prior art, specifically Trigui and Rudrapatna. This decision moves the dispute forward toward a full evidentiary hearing on obviousness grounds.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 17 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board determined that the prior art reference Trigui disclosed sufficient elements, rendering the claimed MIMO/Beamforming technology obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA).
Astrazeneca Ab v.T Rao
The Delhi High Court framed multiple issues regarding the validity of three Indian Patents (IN 209907, IN 247984, IN 272674) held by Astrazeneca Ab. The court also addressed infringement claims related to the product TICAGRELOR and granted procedural directions for evidence recording.
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.