IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 67 of 159 · 4,764 total
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Irvinder Laur Chadha v.Garnish Electronics Pvt Ltd And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed to remove the trademark 'GARNISH'. The court found that the registration had expired on June 4, 2022. Since the statutory grace period for restoration and renewal under Section 25(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Rule 60 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, had lapsed in 2023, the court directed the Registry to remove the mark. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark registrations.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A.
Amgen Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Sanofi and Regeneron entities concerning European Patent 3,666,797 and their drug Praluent (Alirocumab). The defendants had filed revocation actions, and the Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety on 16 July 2024. Both parties agreed to stay the infringement proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal against the revocation decision, and the court granted the stay.
Mathys & Squire LLP v.Respondent
An intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire LLP, applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to all written pleadings and evidence in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 414 708. The respondents, BITZER Electronics A/S and Carrier Corporation, did not submit any comments. The judge-rapporteur granted the application, finding that since the proceedings had come to an end, the interests opposing publication under Article 45 UPCA were not substantial enough to override the requester's interest in accessing the documents.
BITZER Electronics A/S v.Carrier Corporation
BITZER Electronics A/S brought a revocation action against Carrier Corporation concerning European patent EP 3 414 708 B1, which relates to an apparatus and method for cold chain monitoring of perishable goods. The claimant alleged the patent was invalid due to added subject matter, insufficient disclosure, lack of novelty over several prior art documents, and lack of inventive step. The defendant filed a statement of defence along with a main request and twelve auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The court addressed procedural issues concerning the admissibility of amendments to non-attacked claims and the permissibility of new grounds for revocation raised in the reply.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a request by Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, for access to written pleadings and evidence from prior preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) involving European Patent EP3831283. Abbott opposed the request, arguing that its appeal of the refused preliminary injunction meant the proceedings were still ongoing and that the integrity of the proceedings remained at issue. The Judge-Rapporteur applied the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore decision and granted public access to the register pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
1 Local Division Munich UPC_CFI_501/2023 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 29/07/2024 Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 27/12/2023 Meril GmbH (Defendant) - Bornheimer Straße 135- 137 - 53119 - Bonn - DE Statement of claim
NEC Corporation v.TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
NEC Corporation appealed orders of the Munich Local Division that denied its requests for alternative service of Statements of claim on three Asian TCL defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The Court of Appeal held that service by email to a person not authorized to accept service, and public service by written notice displayed at the court's premises, were not permissible at this stage of the proceedings. The appeal was rejected, with the Court confirming that Hague Convention service attempts should normally be made before alternative methods of service can be employed.
Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal addressed a procedural question regarding where a cost determination application (Kostenfestsetzung) must be filed when it follows an order or decision of the Court of Appeal. Both parties agreed, and the Court of Appeal confirmed, that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance and decided by the Rapporteur of that instance, even when the application relates exclusively or partially to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The underlying dispute concerned EP 3883277, where the Local Chamber Munich had rejected VusionGroup's application for interim measures and ordered it to bear Hanshow's costs.
Powell Gilbert LLP v.Respondent
This order concerned an application by Powell Gilbert LLP, acting as a member of the public, for public access to written pleadings and evidence lodged in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2713879, owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The main proceedings had concluded with a final order, though an appeal was pending. Applying the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore precedent, the Judge-Rapporteur weighed the interest in public access against the protection of the integrity of the proceedings and the parties' interests, and granted the application for public access to the register under Rule 262.1 RoP.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services filed an authorized response defending its right to submit new evidence with a reply to the patent owner’s preliminary response in IPR2024‑01221. The brief argues that the Board’s discretion was properly exercised and that the patent owner had no due‑process prejudice.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB Director denied Early Warning Services’ request for a rehearing of the institution decision on Intellectual Ventures’ patent 7,314,167, leaving the institution intact.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services petitions the PTAB Director to vacate an institution decision that relied on post‑petition evidence. The Patent Owner claims the Board violated statutory thresholds and due‑process requirements.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging TIAX LLC's patent covering lithium-ion battery cathode materials. The petitioner asserts that the claims are anticipated by Lampe-Onnerud and Takagi, or rendered obvious in view of prior art combinations like Park/Lampe-Onnerud.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
Early Warning Services challenges Intellectual Ventures II LLC's patent on secure transaction apparatuses, asserting that the claims are anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art. The petitioner relies heavily on references like Wang et al., Drummond, and TAO to establish grounds for unpatentability under 102 and 103. This initial petition sets up a broad challenge across multiple claim sets related to mobile authentication.
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd. v.CAMX Power LLC
POSCO Future M Co., Ltd.'s IPR challenge against CAMX Power LLC's lithium-ion battery patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on grounds of anticipation or obviousness.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB institution decision found sufficient evidence for Early Warning Services, LLC to challenge numerous claims of Intellectual Ventures II LLC based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board adopted the Petitioner’s plain and ordinary meaning for key terms like 'embedded,' rejecting restrictive interpretations by the Patent Owner.
Early Warning Services, LLC v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC
The PTAB denied the petitioner's motion to exclude evidence and ultimately found that the challenged claims were not unpatentable over the cited prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'image capture device,' defining it as an imaging-based barcode reader, rejecting the petitioner’s broader interpretation including laser scanners.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application. The Controller refused the grant on the ground that the invention related to tobacco use, which causes serious prejudice to human life or health, making it ineligible under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation has appealed against an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Patent Application No. 201617000209. The appellant contends that the respondent failed to consider their detailed submissions regarding the invention requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Is Eg Halal India Private Limited v.Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.
Ht Media Limited & Anr. v.Hindustan Live News & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Ht Media Limited against Hindustan Live News, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The court restrained the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks like 'HINDUSTAN LIVE NEWS' and directed Meta Platforms Inc. (Facebook/Instagram) and Google LLC (YouTube) to immediately remove infringing content. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to protect established brand goodwill in the digital media space.
Primestack Pte. Ltd And Anr. v.John Doe And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Primestack Pte. Ltd against John Doe and others regarding the infringement of its registered trademark 'CoinDCX'. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case, irreparable loss was likely, and the balance of convenience favored granting relief. The order specifically restrained unauthorized use of the trademarks and directed various defendants to suspend operations of associated accounts, domains, and phone numbers.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face and FriendliAI settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,442,775 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before institution. The settlement documents were ordered to be kept confidential.
Hugging Face, Inc. v.FriendliAI Inc.
Hugging Face, Inc. initiated an IPR challenge against FriendliAI Inc., arguing that the challenged claims related to Transformer inference optimization are obvious.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against the denial of its preliminary injunction application by the UPC Local Division The Hague regarding patent EP 3 831 283. Abbott had submitted four auxiliary requests in its appeal, which the Respondents sought to have disregarded. The Court of Appeal decided to defer ruling on the allowability of the auxiliary requests to the oral hearing and granted the Respondents an extension of deadline for their Statement of response, ultimately rejecting Abbott's requests in its R.9 RoP application.
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.