IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 70 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung, Google, and others petitioned to challenge Cerence Operating Company's patent on SMS voice messaging technology. The PTAB found sufficient grounds for institution under 35 U.S.C. § 103, meaning the obviousness arguments will proceed to a hearing. This action targets claims related to audio compression and synthesis within mobile communications.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against Cerence Operating Company, arguing that the patent claims related to SMS audio messaging were obvious over prior art references including Dolan and Freedman. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, moving the case into active litigation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Cerence Operating Company et al.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung against Cerence regarding claims related to voice messaging in mobile devices. The Board accepted the Petitioner's mapping that prior art discloses key elements, despite challenges from the Patent Owner on claim definitions.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Piyush Goel
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Piyush Goel alleging infringement of its trademarks, including 'Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo', and 'Arcuate Stitching Design', as well as passing off. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was clandestinely stocking and selling inferior quality jeans using deceptively similar marks. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting injunctions and awarding damages.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several procedural matters in CS(COMM) 225/2024 and CS(COMM) 226/2024. It allowed the plaintiff time to file replication, issued notice for the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of Patent No. 319855, and granted permission to the defendant to submit prior art evidence via a pen drive.
PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v.AWM S.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 23 July 2024, addressing procedural questions concerning applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 et seq. RoP. The order establishes that such applications imply a request to disclose the outcome of the measures to the applicant, but that disclosure must be subject to the protection of confidential information. The Court clarifies that the defendant must be heard on disclosure requests even if they have not filed a remedy against the underlying preservation order, and that failure to seek review cannot be construed as tacit approval of disclosure.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Respondent
Two revocation actions brought by Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine against proprietors of European Patents EP 3 056 563 and EP 3 056 564 were disposed of by the Central Division (Section Munich) after the parties reached a settlement. The Court held that parties may conclude their action by way of settlement without seeking a confirmatory Court decision under Rule 365 RoP, and disposed of the actions under Rule 360 RoP as they had become devoid of purpose. The Court also ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees in each action, ruling that Rule 370.9(c) RoP is not limited to Court-confirmed settlements.
Himson Engineering Private Limited v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG
1 Milan - Local Division UPC_CFI_240/2023 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 23/07/2024 Order no. ORD_40568/2024 APPLICANT 1) Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG (Applicant) - Leverkuser Strasse 65 - 42897 - Remscheid - DE Represent
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A
This order of the Court of Appeal addresses the interpretation of Article 60 UPCA regarding applications for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises. The court clarified that such applications imply disclosure of the evidence to the applicant, but this disclosure is subject to confidentiality protections. The court must hear the other party before deciding on disclosure, and the opportunity for confidentiality requests is distinct from remedies against the preservation order itself.
Simulity Labs Limited, Arm Germany d.o.o, ARM Limited, Arm France SAS, SVF Holdco, Arm Poland Sp. z.o.o, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Germany GmbH, Arm Sweden AB, Apical Limited v.ICPillar LLC
This case concerns an appeal in a main infringement action involving patent EP 3000239, where ICPillar appealed an order requiring it to provide adequate security for legal costs. ICPillar sought to keep parts of an insurance policy (Exhibit 4) confidential, but the Court of Appeal rejected this request. The Court then addressed ICPillar's argument that it should be allowed to amend its Statement of appeal to maintain equality of arms, which the Court also rejected.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential and to withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the PTAB review of patent 11,808,994.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have jointly moved to withdraw PTAB post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 11,808,994 following a settlement that resolves all disputes, including related district‑court and ITC matters.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,808,994 B1, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before a trial could be instituted.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation has filed a petition challenging 16 claims of Monolithic Power Systems' '377 Patent, asserting that the patent is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art from Tateishi. The challenge leverages the buck-converter circuit disclosed in Tateishi to invalidate key features of the step-down regulator.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioner in challenging claims related to step-down regulators. The challenge centered on anticipation and obviousness over prior art, specifically regarding pseudo constant on time (PCOT) control circuits.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding multiple independent and dependent claims unpatentable. The grounds were anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103), based on the prior art reference Tateishi.
R. & D. S.R.L. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
R. & D. S.R.L. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application (No. 8850/CHENP/2012) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was non-speaking, failing to provide reasons for rejecting the application or disallowing amended claims. The High Court agreed, finding the decision unsupported by adequate reasoning.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several applications in the suit, including granting time for the plaintiff to file a replication. Crucially, the defendant filed a counterclaim under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 319855. Additionally, the court allowed the defendant to submit prior art via an encrypted pen drive.
M/s Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd v.Akshay Uttamchand Jain Trading As Micon Industries
The plaintiff, Biocon Switchgear (P) Ltd., filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing goods using the deceptively similar trademark 'MICON', infringing upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BIOCON'. The court found that the resemblance was close enough to constitute passing off and infringement.
Cosco India Ltd v.Varsha Sports
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright, Cosco India Ltd successfully moved an application before the Delhi High Court. The court allowed the plaintiff to introduce official certificates from the Trademark Registry into the record. This procedural step is crucial for establishing the validity and scope of the intellectual property rights at the nascent stage of the litigation.
Pfizer Products Inv. v.Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Pfizer Products Inv. against Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. The court noted that the respondents had withdrawn their trademark registration application, rendering the original dispute moot and infructuous. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Amul Brush Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the ongoing dispute between Satnam Brush Industry and Amul Brush Company. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction to Satnam Brush Industry, recognizing that the defendants' packaging and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established brand 'AMBER'. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' books of accounts and infringing products, signaling a deep dive into the alleged infringement and passing off.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.Respondent
This order concerns a dispute over confidentiality protection and access restrictions in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) had requested access restrictions under Rule 262A RoP regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply. The Rapporteur issued a confidentiality order on 03.07.2024 granting access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and three named natural persons. The defendants sought review under Rule 333 RoP, arguing that the three named individuals should be excluded because they are responsible for strategic decisions in parallel US proceedings and could not disregard the confidential information once obtained.
Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA, HP International SARL, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP Austria GmbH, HP Inc Bulgaria EOOD (Ейч Пи Инк България ЕООД), HP France SAS, HP v.Dolby International AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The court addressed the treatment of an intervener (Access Advance LLC) under the Rules of Procedure, holding that unless otherwise ordered, an intervener is treated as a party pursuant to R. 315.4 RoP and is therefore entitled to the protections of R. 262A.6 RoP. The ruling clarified that the circle of persons authorized to access confidential information must include at least one natural person beyond the intervener's procedural representatives.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the PTAB Director’s order that vacated institution of its IPR on a body‑camera patent, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola’s petition to institute an IPR against Stellar’s 9,485,471 patent is challenged by Stellar, which seeks Director Review alleging the Board misapplied Fintiv factor guidance and failed to find compelling merits. The request targets claims 1‑13 of the patent.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola seeks rehearing of the USPTO Director’s decision to vacate institution of its IPRs covering body‑camera patents, arguing the rescission of prior guidance violates the APA and due process. It offers an expanded stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al. v.Stellar, LLC
Motorola has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPRs covering body‑camera patents. The company argues the USPTO’s retroactive policy change violates the APA and due‑process, and it is willing to expand its stipulation to satisfy discretionary standards.
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.