IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 66 of 159 · 4,764 total
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns service-of-process issues in a patent infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 3 096 315. The defendant had been separated from the main proceedings because service at the Düsseldorf address of Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH was unsuccessful, and the Hague Service Convention Central Authority of the requested state had refused service on political grounds. The Local Chamber Mannheim held that no further alternative service attempt under Rule 275.1 is required once Rules 270–274 have been exhausted and the Central Authority has definitively refused service, and ordered that the prior service steps be recognized as valid service, with publication on the court's homepage.
DexCom Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott s.r.l., Abbott GmbH, Abbott B.V., Abbott France (S.A.S.), Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott (S.A./N.V.), Abbott Diagnostics GmbH
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes reviews covering patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486. The Board terminated the proceedings based on a written settlement agreement and granted confidentiality for the agreement.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,740,926 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding before a final written decision was issued.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes over four patents and filed a joint motion to terminate the related IPRs. The motion relies on statutory authority and Board precedent favoring termination after settlement.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,480,836, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding. The settlement agreement is treated as confidential business information.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Intellectual Ventures I LLC's wireless communication patent (7623439) on grounds of obviousness. The challenge centers on whether a minor modification to OFDM cyclic delay diversity is inventive over existing prior art standards.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenges Patent 9845486 on grounds of anticipation and obviousness in microbiological detection methods. The Petitioner argues that prior art references, including Rayman and Nagar, disclose or render obvious the claimed steps involving sampling, dilution, and assaying.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. et al. v.Intellectual Ventures I LLC
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenging claims related to Cyclic Diversity Systems (OFDM), finding the petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board specifically found deficiencies in meeting the duration requirements when comparing cyclic advance against prior art disclosures like Larsson and IEEE.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute its IPR challenges against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11740926). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Veselov and Mohanty regarding cloud security methods.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully challenged claims 1-30 of the '486 patent in a PTAB Institution Decision, establishing a reasonable likelihood that the methods for pathogen detection are unpatentable. The petitioner relied on prior art references including Rayman and Nagar to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness across multiple grounds.
Natera Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Natera Inc appealed against an order issued by The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which held that its patent application (No. 18/DELNP/2015) was not patentable due to non-compliance with various sections of the Patent Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and granted time for the respondent to file a reply.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Lotus Labs Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit regarding infringement of patent IN'841. The court considered the defense that the defendants were only engaged in permitted activities under Section 107(A) and had not yet obtained commercial manufacturing licenses from CDSCO. The court granted an interim order allowing the defendants to proceed with obtaining necessary permissions.
Yonex Kabushiki Kaisha Trading As Yonex Co Ltd v.Harshit Setia & Anr.
Yonex filed a petition seeking the rectification and expungement of a trademark registration (No. 5548308) in Class 25, held by Harshit Setia, for the mark 'AERUS'. Yonex argued that the registration was obtained in bad faith and lacked bonafide use, making it ex facie illegal under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies within specified timelines, setting the matter for further hearing.
Havells India Ltd v.Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Havells India Ltd against Hirvijay Industries Llp & Ors regarding the alleged infringement of the registered trademark 'REO'. The court found that the defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark, 'REIO', constituted passing off and dilution. Furthermore, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct searches at the defendants' premises, seize infringing goods, and inspect relevant financial records.
Mr.A.Salaudeen v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.
Shri Kirit Bhadiadra v.Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court allowed Wings Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent) to introduce a recent trademark registration certificate for 'MEDILICE' into the ongoing litigation. Although the original suit concerned infringement and passing off, the court recognized that the new Class 5 registration could bear on the disputes between the parties. This order allows the introduction of evidence relating to the mark's expanded scope, while preserving the rights of the appellant.
Sunita Jaykumar Patel & Anr. v.International Institute Of Pelvic Floor Research Rahab and Education & Ors.
This Gujarat High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging a restrictive interim injunction granted in a trademark and copyright dispute. The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to resolve key aspects of the conflict, specifically regarding the use of the 'V Care' mark and the scope of copyright protection for educational materials. Consequently, the court substituted the original injunction order with the terms agreed upon in the MoU, effectively settling the immediate dispute at the injunction stage.
Jindal (India) Limited v.Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Jindal (India) Limited against Ratan Kumar Choudhary & Anr. While granting procedural exemptions, the court specifically advanced the main injunction request (I.A. 6082/2024). The court found prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered mark 'JINDAL' and the defendants' usage on roofing sheets, ordering notice to the defendants to record their undertaking before the Court.
M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Aum Universal Inc. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed M/S G.K. Tobacco Industries Pvt. Ltd.'s application seeking permission to introduce crucial new evidence into the ongoing trademark dispute. The plaintiff sought to file the official trademark registration certificate and status, which was granted after the initial opposition filed by the defendants was rejected. This ruling allows the plaintiff to strengthen its case for rectification in the suit.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, arguing that the invention was not merely a method of treatment but rather an in vitro method for selecting specific allogenic T-cell lines. The respondent had rejected the claim under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970, on this ground. The Madras High Court found that the respondent erroneously failed to appreciate the actual scope of the claim, which focused on the selection process rather than treatment itself.
Dolby International AB v.HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., HP Inc., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP Finland Oy, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP Austria GmbH, HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc Danmark ApS, Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP It
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1 and addresses the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) in proceedings brought by Dolby International AB against fifteen HP entities. The court established that, unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 of the Rules of Procedure and may apply for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A regarding information contained in their submissions.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Alexion Pharmaceuticals' request for expedition of its appeal against an order of the Hamburg Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis concerning EP 3167888. The court held that the circumstances were not sufficiently urgent to justify shortening the already brief 15-day time limit for the respondent's statement of response, and that Alexion's arguments about seeking patent protection quickly and the appeal involving a purely legal issue were insufficient.
BEGO Medical GmbH v.CEAD USA B.V., CEAD B.V.
This order concerns a request for confidentiality protection under Rules 262A and 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure in a nullity action regarding EP 2 681 034 B1. The defendant/applicant BEGO Medical GmbH sought access restrictions for information about its attorney costs submitted in annexes to its brief following an interim hearing under Rule 104(k). The judge-rapporteur addressed the interplay between inter-party confidentiality under Rule 262A and public access restrictions under Rule 262.2, establishing guiding principles for balancing the relevant interests.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This procedural order concerns an intervention application filed by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action brought by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH against STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH regarding European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The patent relates to a color and light mixing collective optic for outdoor imaging display panels. STRABAG had installed LED variable message signs supplied by Chainzone at Austrian motorway locations under a contract from ASFINAG. The court addressed the admissibility of the intervention and the question of whether the intervener could be ordered to provide security for costs.
Elanco Tiergesundheit Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged the refusal of their patent application, which claimed a method for generating live vaccines. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was merely a reproduction of the hearing notice and lacked independent reasoning or application of mind to the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Star Scientific Limited v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Star Scientific Limited appealed the Controller's order refusing the grant of a patent (Application No. 202017011947) for Catalytic Combustion. The appellant argued that the refusal was flawed because it failed to consider their detailed responses and amendments, and that non-attendance at the hearing was not abandonment due to financial difficulties. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.201747015867) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which had rejected it on the grounds that the invention was a method of treatment, making it unpatentable under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the claim described an in vitro method of selecting T-cell lines, not a direct method of treating a patient. The Madras High Court agreed with this distinction, finding that the rejection was based on an erroneous application of law to the facts. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
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.