IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 65 of 218 · 6,517 total
Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
The Director granted review and vacated institution decisions in multiple IPRs involving Motorola Solutions and Stellar, ultimately denying the petitions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics challenged Cerence Operating Company’s patentability over handwriting recognition and text input features, arguing obviousness using prior art from Arai and Fenwick. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple claims, advancing the IPR challenge.
Silicon Motion Inc. et al. v.K. Mizra LLC
Silicon Motion Inc.'s petition against K. Mizra LLC was instituted by the PTAB on grounds of obviousness (§ 103). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success regarding multiple claims related to DRAM interface circuitry, proceeding toward a full trial.
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB denied Charter Communications' IPR petition against Touchstream Technologies, citing failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds and procedural bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). The Board also construed key terms like 'first format' as distinct from 'second format.'
Charter Communications, Inc. v.Iarnach Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding Claim 5 unpatentable over Bernstein and Tsuge based on obviousness (103). Claims 1-3 and 6-11 were found patentable, despite extensive claim construction disputes regarding 'service auto-configuration method.'
Charter Communications, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 22-26 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of Danciu and Mahajan prior art. While the Petitioner succeeded for these specific claims, they failed to demonstrate obviousness for claims 1-21 against various prior art references.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB (EP 1 793 917)
This case concerns a panel review of an order dismissing a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Defendant, Aarke AB, sought security of EUR 400,000, arguing that enforcement of a UPC cost order in Israel would be impossible or unduly burdensome due to the reciprocity requirement under Israeli law. The panel dismissed the application for review, finding that the Claimant (part of the PepsiCo group) was financially capable of complying with a cost order and that no sufficient facts supported a likelihood of unenforceability, while granting leave to appeal.
Celltrion Healthcare Italy S.R.L., Celltrion Healthcare Belgium SPRL, Celltrion Healthcare Finland Oy, Celltrion Healthcare Netherlands B.V., Celltrion Healthcare France SAS, Celltrion Healthcare Deutschland GmbH, Celltrion Healthcare Hungary Kft. v.Novartis AG, Genentech, Inc.
Order
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Central Division, Paris Seat, which had rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing the risk of an injunction in parallel infringement proceedings before the Munich Local Division and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, holding that the interests advanced by Meril did not justify shortening the procedural timetable at Edwards' expense.
Meril Italy Srl, Meril GmbH, and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order concerns three appeals filed by Meril entities against a decision of the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris Seat) that rejected their revocation action and counterclaims for revocation and maintained Edwards Lifesciences Corporation's European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve) as amended. Meril requested expedition of the appeal proceedings, citing potential irreparable harm from a possible injunction in parallel infringement proceedings and alleged errors in the impugned decision. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for expedition, finding that Meril's interests did not outweigh Edwards' legitimate interest in having the appeals proceed according to the regular timetable.
SRMB Srijan Private Limited v.Grihashakti Private Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of SRMB Srijan Private Limited against Grihashakti Private Limited. The court found that the respondent was grossly violating the terms of a franchise agreement by misusing the petitioner's 'SRMB' trademark and brand, logo, and trade dress while manufacturing TMT Steel Bars without adhering to required standards. Given the urgency and apprehension of further misuse, the court restrained the respondent from using the marks or selling related products until November 30, 2024.
Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics SARL v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Advanced Bionics against the rejection of its request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP 4 074 373. The court held that the President of the Court of First Instance correctly refused the language change, given that the parties are based in countries where German is an official language, and that a change at this advanced stage of the proceedings would create practical difficulties.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Düsseldorf Local Chamber rejected the applicant's request for provisional measures (interim injunction) against the respondents regarding European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1, which covers an optical fiber for treating venous diseases. The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate the substantive necessity of interim measures, as its arguments regarding lost market share and customer loyalty were speculative and did not establish that monetary compensation would be insufficient. The applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, and appeal was permitted.
Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
Anordnung
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 under statutory and regulatory provisions.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00859 under 35 U.S.C. §317(a) after reaching a confidential settlement and patent license agreement.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Court decision.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom, Inc.'s '625 patent claims in a PTAB proceeding, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that numerous features of the patented technology are rendered obvious either by single prior art references (Rao) or combinations involving Rao and Lundquist. Additionally, Abbott questions the written description support for key anti-rotation features.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. challenged DexCom's CGM needle insertion claims in an IPR, asserting that the anti-rotation features are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references like Pace, Chae, and Lundquist. The petitioner argues various combinations of these disclosures render numerous claimed features obvious under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against DexCom, Inc.'s patent (11510625) regarding transcutaneous analyte measurement systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on alleged anticipation by prior art reference Pace for at least Claim 1.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. et al. v.DexCom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Abbott's second IPR petition against DexCom's '625 patent. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any material difference in grounds compared to a previously instituted review.
Thijs, Roeland Michel Mathieu v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the respondent's refusal to restore Indian Patent no. 408932. The court issued notice and, without addressing the merits, granted the respondent two weeks to clarify a discrepancy regarding the email ID of the Patent Agent.
Genovie Ab v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Genovie Ab has appealed against an order passed by the Controller of Patents under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appeal challenges new objections raised at the notice stage, which the appellant claims were not appreciated on merits despite submissions being filed.
Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd v.Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates And Ors
In an amicable settlement reached before the Delhi High Court, Sagar Ratna Restaurants Pvt Ltd secured a decree against Shree Shubh Rathnam Associates. The parties agreed that the defendants would transition their seven existing 'Sagar Express' outlets into franchisees under Sagar Ratna's brand. Crucially, the defendants committed to surrendering the 'Sagar Express' trademark and agreeing not to use any similar names in the future, effectively resolving long-standing trademark infringement disputes.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking rectification of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan, as the respondent had initiated cancellation proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks. However, in a subsequent order, the Court directed the Registry to take necessary action regarding pending rectification applications and clarified that these matters pertain to the Chennai Trade Marks Registry, not New Delhi.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerns A. Menarini Diagnostics' request to classify certain portions of its Objection to an Application for provisional measures as confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protection to both the technical descriptions of the Attacked Embodiment and Menarini's business figures, while establishing a restricted confidentiality club for access. The Court deferred the enforceability of the order to allow time for appeal.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED
The plaintiffs sought a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants concerning Indian Patent No. 269841. The defendants submitted that they had not commercialized any product containing 'Ruxolitinib' and did not intend to do so in the future.
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.