IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 63 of 159 · 4,764 total
Natalja Eikje v.Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natalja Eikje filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Controller of Patents which refused the entire set of 16 claims in Indian Patent Application No. 7173/DELNP/2014. The appellant argued that since no objection was raised against specific claims (claims 7-16), refusing the entire application violated the Principles of Natural Justice.
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.
Shri Rajesh Chugh v.Mehruddin Ansari & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Shri Rajesh Chugh against Mehruddin Ansari & Anr., directing the cancellation of the rival trademark ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM. The court accepted the respondent's admission that the mark had been abandoned due to non-use, despite its initial similarity to the petitioner's established brand NIZAM'S. This ruling underscores the importance of continuous use and good faith in maintaining a registered trademark.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off of marks like 'REVITAL' and 'CEROXIM'. Despite the plaintiff alleging deceptive similarity in the defendant's marks ('ORIVITAL' and 'OXIM'), both parties expressed interest in exploring a settlement. Consequently, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution.
Elder Remedies Limited v.Elder Prroject Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those concerning document filing procedures. Crucially, the court proceeded with the main petition filed by Elder Remedies Limited seeking cancellation of a copyright registration (No. 2153/2020-CO/A). The petitioner alleges that the respondent unlawfully obtained the copyright without proper notification under Rule 70(9) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which fundamentally prejudices the petitioner's rights. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed replies regarding the validity of the registration.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Deepak Kumar Mittal & Anr.
Guruji Enterprises Pvt Ltd has filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the removal and cancellation of a similar trademark used by Deepak Kumar Mittal. The petitioner asserts that their family has been commercially using the 'GURU JI' mark since 1983-84, establishing prior and senior rights in relation to various goods. The court accepted notice from the respondent and directed both parties to file detailed replies within specified timelines, setting the stage for a full hearing on trademark infringement/revocation.
M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries And Ors v.R. C. Plasto Tanks And Pipes Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court set aside an earlier Commercial Court order that had restrained M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries (Appellants) from using its trademark and trade dress, 'AQUA PLAST'. The court found that the trial court erred in concluding that the competing marks were deceptively similar merely by comparing parts of the devices. Instead, the High Court emphasized that a comprehensive review of the overall commercial impression of the marks is necessary when assessing infringement, thereby favoring Ganesh Gouri's right to use its label.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to keep their settlement agreement with Implicit confidential and to terminate the IPR. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. §317(b).
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR2024-00787 after settling their dispute with patent owner Implicit, LLC. The Board was asked to end the proceeding, which had not yet been instituted.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu and Capital One settled their IPR dispute with patent owner Implicit, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial. The Board granted motions to keep the settlement agreements confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia jointly filed a settlement and motion to terminate IPR2024-00605 covering Nokia’s patent 10,536,714. The Board granted termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement documents.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,536,714 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority and public‑policy reasons to end the proceeding.
Hulu LLC et al. v.--
Hulu LLC and Capital One filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Patent No. 6976248, arguing they are obvious over various combinations of prior art references (Johnson, Parthasarathy, Fowlow). The petitioner asserts that the claimed software delivery methods lack inventive step under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (10536714) on grounds of obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed method for improving motion vector prediction was already known through prior art references like Rusert, Karczewicz, and Nakamura. This is an opening petition challenging a core technology in video compression standards.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Nokia's video encoding patent, showing a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims. The Board adopted a specific claim construction for 'the block,' narrowing its scope to be associated with the first spatial motion vector prediction candidate.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged 17 claims of Nokia's video compression patent via IPR, arguing obviousness over prior art. The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds, particularly concerning the combination of Rusert and Karczewicz techniques.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the IPR, and the Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,607,407 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Microchip Technology seeks Director Review of a PTAB decision that found all claims of its low‑quiescent‑current voltage regulator patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board erred on motivation, KSR application, and teaching‑away analysis. Aptiv Services, the petitioner, argues the combination is obvious over the cited references.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet have filed a Director Review petition to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for their IPR against InfoExpress’s network‑security patent. They contend the Board misinterpreted claim language on user authentication and ignored supporting evidence from the Krantz reference.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
The PTAB emailed counsel confirming receipt of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00646. The petitioner is limited to a 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Court decision.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
The USPTO denied Cisco and Fortinet's request for Director review of a prior institution denial in IPR2024-00540, leaving the original decision unchanged.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,607,407 related to cleaning appliances. The challenger asserts that the patent is unpatentable under both §102 (anticipation) and §103 (obviousness).
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
FERVO ENERGY CO. challenges Ormat Technologies' patent (7320221) in a PTAB petition, asserting obviousness over multiple combinations of geothermal and hydrocarbon prior art. The petitioner argues that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on references including Rinaldi, Mims, and Swenson.
Aptiv Services US, LLC et al. v.Microchip Technology, Inc.
Aptiv Services challenged Microchip Technology's LDO voltage regulator patent (9471074), arguing that the claimed features are obvious over prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on combinations of references like Al-Shyoukh, Rincon-Mora, Ivanov, and Stanescu to demonstrate lack of inventive step.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.InfoExpress Inc.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of InfoExpress Inc.'s patent (8,347,350), arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on combining prior art references Krantz and Herrmann to demonstrate predictable network access control features.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson Technology Limited successfully established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property regarding vacuum cleaner technology. The Board found that combinations of prior art references rendered multiple claims obvious or anticipated.
FERVO ENERGY CO. v.Ormat Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for FERVO ENERGY CO.'s IPR challenge against Ormat Technologies, Inc., finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial was based on deficiencies in showing obviousness over prior art references like Rinaldi and Swenson.
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.