IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 72 of 218 · 6,517 total
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
Hand Held Products, Inc. v.Scandit AG
Hand Held Products, Inc. sought interim measures against Scandit AG for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 866 051 concerning indicia-reading devices. The Local Chamber Munich found indirect infringement of claim 10 based on Scandit's software development kit (SDK) and issued a relative prohibition against offering/supplying the SDK for use in certain UPC member states, subject to a EUR 500,000 security deposit by the applicant.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The court granted Hewlett-Packard Development Company's request to hear a witness at the oral hearing, who was the author of written attestations already produced and whose evidentiary value was contested by LAMA France. The court rejected LAMA France's request for simultaneous English-to-French interpretation during the witness hearing, finding it unnecessary since English is one of the two procedural languages of the Paris Local Division and the common working language of the court.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited, proprietor of European patent EP 2 152 073 B1 relating to herbicide compositions, sought provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited in connection with their herbicide product 'Kagura'. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed issues including the burden of pleading and proof for composition claims, the risk of first infringement based on distribution outside Contracting States combined with advertising within them, and the requirement for a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause. The court also addressed procedural matters including the limitation of validity arguments to the best three in summary proceedings and the applicable safe harbour period for temporal urgency.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Micron (as petitioner) seeks IPR of U.S. Patent 10,950,300 covering flash memory systems with MLC/SLC cells, arguing the claims are obvious over Dusija and Sutardja. The petition emphasizes early filing and favorable Fintiv factors to secure institution.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical and Serendia reached a settlement that resolved all disputes over U.S. Patent No. 10,869,812. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the instituted IPRs and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
Phison Electronics Corp. has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s ‘546 NAND flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over extensive prior art.
EndyMed Medical Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
EndyMed Medical Ltd. petitions to invalidate Serendia's microneedling patent (10869812) based on anticipation and obviousness over prior art references, including Mehta and Na’848. The petition challenges all 20 claims, arguing that the combination of existing technology renders the claimed invention non-novel or obvious.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC.
The PTAB denied the petition challenging a NAND Flash Memory System patent based on grounds including 101, 112, and 103. The Board found that the claims were directed toward a technological improvement in memory storage and adequately supported by the specification.
Hendrickson USA, L.L.C. v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 2621/CHENP/2015) by the Controller, which had previously found that shot peening in the Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) was obvious from prior art. The appellant argued that its invention specifically claimed peening beyond the stress concentration boundary and asserted technical advantages for this extension. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter to allow a fresh examination of the claim's novelty and non-obviousness based on peening beyond the HAZ.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) filed a suit against Massey Ferguson Corp. (MFC) seeking declarations regarding trademark abandonment and injunctive relief concerning their respective trademarks. The original Commercial Court returned the plaint, directing TAFE to file it in the Commercial Division of the High Court, citing maintainability issues. TAFE appealed this order, arguing for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that allowing such suits in the Commercial Court could lead to forum shopping and undermine the philosophy of the Commercial Courts Act.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland v.Km Swarnalatha & Ors.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Holdings Ireland filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 203937, which covers dasatinib. The court examined the connection between various defendants involved in manufacturing and marketing the drug. Ultimately, the court found that Defendant No. 7 had launched the impugned product under the brand name DASA SPL without appearing before the court. Consequently, the suit was decreed against the parties based on these findings.
YC Electric Vehicles v.Saksham Trading Company
YC Electric Vehicles successfully concluded its trademark and design infringement suit against Saksham Trading Company through an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit, formalizing the defendant's admission that YC is the sole owner of the 'YATRI' and 'YC' trademarks, as well as specific E-Rickshaw designs. The settlement also included a payment of ₹50,000 to the plaintiff, providing a definitive resolution to the dispute.
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v.Wow Punjabi
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 253/2024) between Wow Momo Foods Private Limited and Wow Punjabi. The case, which sought permanent injunctions against passing off and unfair trade practices, was settled amicably by both parties. The court decreed the suit in favor of Wow Momo, based on the settlement terms, wherein Wow Punjabi acknowledged Wow Momo's exclusive ownership of the 'WOW' trademark and agreed to cease all use of similar marks.
Hyundai Motor India Limited v.Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Hyundai Motor India Limited, leading to the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by Aaa Teleshoping Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent's mark was identical and confusingly similar to Hyundai’s prior and extensively used 'ELANTRA' brand in the automotive sector. This ruling reinforces the principle that prior adoption and continuous use grant exclusive rights, even when goods are in different classes but related.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH, and Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by Kinexon companies and UEFA for security for costs in appeal proceedings against Ballinno B.V. The court ruled that R.158 RoP and R.222.2 RoP are applicable to the Court of Appeal, and ordered Ballinno to provide security of €25,000 within two weeks, finding that Ballinno's financial situation raised legitimate concerns about the recoverability of any cost order.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
Avago Technologies sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement of European Patent EP 1 612 910 B1, which relates to a power control system for electronic circuits, alleging that Tesla's Model Y vehicles using AMD Ryzen processors infringed the patent. Tesla filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked the patent in its main request but maintained it in a modified auxiliary request form, finding partial infringement and allocating costs 85% to Avago and 15% to Tesla.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holdings ApS
The provided judgment text contains only digital signature blocks and does not include any substantive content regarding the facts, dispute, arguments, or outcome of the case. No factual details can be extracted from the input.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric seeks Director Review to vacate the institution of two consolidated IPRs covering its LED lighting patent, citing failure to disclose a Chinese parent company and contradictory claim‑construction arguments by the petitioners.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of its motion to terminate an IPR, arguing that petitioners presented inconsistent claim constructions across forums.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Anonymous Media Research Holdings settled their IPR before institution, dismissing the petition and the patent with prejudice.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris have filed a joint request to keep their settlement confidential and to terminate the IPR over patent 10,434,394.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment jointly moved to end the IPR over patent 10,434,394 after reaching a settlement. The Board granted the motion, terminating the proceeding and sealing the settlement agreement.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies opposes the patent owner's request for director review, arguing the deposition dispute is moot and that the cited references are printed publications supporting the institution of inter partes review.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies and Cambridge Enterprise Limited jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01235 after reaching a settlement agreement. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
Pascal Technologies seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution, arguing the Board erred on the printed‑publication requirement and relied on inadmissible hearsay. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner failed to provide evidence that cited references qualify as printed publications and refused to make a key expert available for deposition.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al. v.Feit Electric Company, Inc.
The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
Garmin International, Inc. et al. v.Saris Equipment, LLC
Garmin and Saris Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,434,394 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding.
Pascal Technologies v.Cambridge Enterprise Limited et al.
The PTAB denied Pascal Technologies' request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2024-01235, leaving the institution order in place.
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.