IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 70 of 218 · 6,517 total
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW of North America successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Foras Technologies, challenging 30 claims related to fault tolerance and processor redundancy. The Board found the petition met the Advanced Bionics framework requirements by introducing new prior art (Arai and Landry).
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully instituted an IPR against Nokia regarding video compression standards, arguing that MPEG-1 teaches or suggests the claimed quantization methods. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success despite initial claim construction disputes over sequence vs. picture parameters.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 39 claims of patent 8127984 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the claimed 'functional emulation' was obvious when combining prior art references like Willgert and Mooney.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 32 claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The Board concluded that the combination of Willgert and Mooney, often combined with Holloway and Pitroda, rendered the claimed RFID emulation/voice calling technology obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Apple Inc. v.Varia Holdings LLC
The PTAB found all 19 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art references (Willgert, Mooney, Holloway, Pitroda). The Board adopted the Petitioner's functional interpretation of 'RFID transponder data,' confirming that mobile devices can emulate RFID functionality without physical hardware limitations.
Cholla Energy LLC et al. v.LANCIUM LLC
The Board found all 16 challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the subject matter was taught or suggested by combining Kiani, Pelio, Chapel, Belady, and Forestiero for various limitations. This final decision confirms the invalidity of the patent claims in the area of power management for datacenters.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims of the '781 patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that while prior art references describe processor swapping or task management, they fail to teach the specific transfer of the 'role' of boot processor during runtime as claimed.
BMW of North America, LLC et al. v.Foras Technologies Limited
BMW challenged claims of Foras Technologies' patent related to switching the boot processor role in multi-processor systems. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the petitioner failed to prove unpatentability over prior art references.
Ppc Broadband Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Ppc Broadband Inc filed an appeal challenging an impugned order dated 28.03.2024 which held that its patent application subject matter ('REEL ENCLOSURES') fell under Section 2(1)(ia) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed applications for exemption from filing documents and condonation of a 55-day delay in filing the appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a rejection of its patent application, "Administration of Wireless Systems," which was initially objected to on grounds including lack of inventive step and subject matter eligibility under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court examined whether the invention provided a sufficient technical contribution beyond mere algorithmic processes. Ultimately, the court found that the core functionality relied heavily on conditional logic and procedural steps, classifying it as an algorithmic process excluded by law.
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Qualcomm Technologies Inc. appealed a rejection order by the Patent Controller regarding its patent application for a live scene recognition system that filters objectionable content before recording. The Controller rejected the claim based on lack of inventive step, citing two pieces of prior art (D1 and D2).
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr ...) v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company filed an appeal against a refusal order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs. The company, citing procedural difficulties inherent to being a foreign entity, sought condonation for a two-month delay in filing the appeal. The Calcutta High Court accepted the grounds presented, finding sufficient cause for the delay.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed an earlier decision concerning a patent application related to insect control methods. The court also addressed two interlocutory applications: one granting exemption from filing originals, and another condoning a 13-day delay in filing the main appeal.
Blackberry Limited v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Blackberry Limited appealed a refusal by the Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application titled 'Auto-Selection of Media Files.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed method for automatically selecting media files based on user preference (confidence level) was non-patentable under Section 3(k). The Delhi High Court ultimately allowed the appeal, directing that the patent be proceeded for grant as amended.
M/S Avon Automotive And Ors v.M/S Avon Cycles Limited
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on an earlier injunction restraining M/S Avon Automotive And Ors from using trademarks like 'AVON' in connection with cycles and related goods. The court recognized the appellants' claims of long-standing usage since 1980, despite the initial order being passed ex parte based on trademark registration details. This interim relief allows the appellants to continue their trade operations while the full merits of the infringement dispute are heard.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited
The Delhi High Court allowed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's appeal and rectification petition against Lumix Domestic Appliances Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement between the parties, which stipulated that Lumix would not object to Panasonic's trademark application for 'LUMIX'. Consequently, the court set aside the Registrar of Trademarks' previous refusal, allowing Panasonic's trademark registration and directing the limitation of goods in Lumix's existing registration.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Nikon have reached a settlement-in-principle on a dispute involving U.S. Patent 10,873,685, and will seek dismissal of the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled their IPR dispute with Optimum Imaging Technologies and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding. The Board has not decided any merits, and the parties cite statutory authority for termination.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied Optimum Imaging’s request for rehearing of the institution decision in IPR2024-01220, keeping the review of the Olympus‑related lens‑correction patent alive. The Board found no abuse of discretion and rejected the discretionary denial argument under § 314(a).
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Fujifilm have reached a settlement-in-principle, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to file a stipulation of dismissal.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and Optimum Imaging have reached a settlement-in-principle in their imaging patent dispute, seeking a stay of court deadlines and planning to dismiss the case.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus and other camera makers settled with Optimum Imaging Technologies, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings covering patent 10,873,685. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Optimum Imaging Technologies and Panasonic have reached a settlement‑in‑principle in their Texas district court case, seeking a 45‑day stay to finalize dismissal paperwork.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. filed an IPR challenging 30 claims related to image aberration correction, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies heavily on prior art from Iwasawa and various secondary references like Enomoto and Ito.
Olympus Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Olympus Corporation et al. successfully navigated the institution phase in an IPR against Optimum Imaging Technologies, LLC regarding imaging systems technology. The Board preliminarily found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Nippon Steel Corporation v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs & Trademarks & Anr.
Nippon Steel Corporation appealed a decision by the Controller General of Patents which refused its patent application for a gas flue repair method and device under Section 3(d) of the Patent Act. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice because the specific objection (Section 3(d)) was not clearly communicated in the initial hearing notice. The Delhi High Court agreed, finding the impugned order unsustainable due to lack of sufficient reasons. Consequently, the court set aside the refusal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, mandating a clear delineation of all objections before granting a new hearing.
Merck Kgaa v.Bharat Patel
Merck Kgaa successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Bharat Patel in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Merck's trademark 'MERCK' is well-known and granted immediate relief, preventing the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or names. This ruling underscores the strong protection afforded to established, globally recognized trademarks under Indian law.
Sanjay Mehra v.Jagdish Choudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the trademark 'SUPERON', against Jagdish Choudhary. The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting an identical mark for allied goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. This protective order prevents the defendant from using the disputed marks until the final hearing.
M/S Nuchem Limited Earlier Known As Nuchem Plastics Limited v.M/S Archit Nuwood Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the trademark dispute between Nuchem Limited and Archit Nuwood Industries. The court granted the defendant an extension of time to file a rejoinder, contingent upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- in costs. Furthermore, the court scheduled both the injunction application (I.A. 7713/2023) and the trademark-related application (I.A. 11949/2023 under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act) for consideration on July 31, 2024.
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.