IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 74 of 159 · 4,764 total
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes review proceedings, resulting in the termination of all petitions without a merits decision. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health have settled their disputes and jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(a). The Board is asked to grant termination before any final written decisions are issued.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company challenged the '771 patent on obviousness grounds related to modular compositing and microbial testing protocols. The PTAB institution decision was driven by parallel district court litigation and a compelling merits case presented by the petitioner. This sets up significant future challenges in both administrative and judicial forums.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef Packing Company successfully petitioned to institute IPR against the '771 patent, establishing a reasonable likelihood of success over at least one claim. The Board adopted Petitioner's definition for 'validation,' clarifying that it merely requires a sample test negative, rejecting the Patent Owner's broader interpretation regarding commercial release.
Anil Kumar Sole Proprietor Of M/S Anil Kumar Ramesh Kumar v.Jyoti Sales House & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Anil Kumar, seeking permanent injunctions against the alleged infringement of his registered trademark 'DHANI' used for edible oil. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's mark, 'DHANIBABA', was deceptively similar in the same business sector. Recognizing the potential for resolution, the court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, allowing both parties an opportunity to settle their trademark dispute outside of litigation.
Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching
This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. & Ors.
The Bombay High Court issued an interim order in favor of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) against Meta Platforms Inc. and other social media intermediaries. The court addressed urgent concerns regarding sophisticated AI-generated 'deepfake' videos impersonating the NSE's MD & CEO, which were used to promote fraudulent stock picking schemes. The order mandates that the platforms immediately remove these unauthorized deepfakes and infringing content, while also compelling them to disclose details of the unknown perpetrators involved in the misuse of the NSE trademark.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories has filed an IPR challenging the validity of a patent covering multiplex digital PCR assays owned by California Institute of Technology et al. The petitioner argues that the claimed methods are unpatentably obvious, representing only a straightforward extension of existing nucleic acid analysis concepts.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
Bio-Rad Laboratories filed a Petition challenging the obviousness of nine claims in patent 10068051, which relates to molecular diagnostics/PCR methods. The petitioner argues that the claimed multiplexed detection techniques are straightforward extensions of existing prior art concepts found in references like Saxonov and Silverbrook.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Petitioners Kia and Toyota filed a petition challenging Emerging Automotive LLC's patent on vehicle access control systems using electronic keys. The challenge centers on multiple grounds of obviousness and anticipation, citing prior art from Kleve, Hatton, Mikan, Xiao, and Sekiyama.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku challenges a patent held by Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC in an IPR proceeding, asserting that the challenged claims related to audience measurement are obvious over prior art. Petitioner Roku relies on combinations of references like Feininger and Ramaswamy/Conklin to demonstrate predictable results in media playback analysis.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v.California Institute of Technology et al.
The PTAB denied Bio-Rad Laboratories' request for rehearing regarding the denial of institution in IPR2024-01178, upholding its finding that the petitioner failed to meet the burden of proving unpatentability.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB institution decision granted IPR on claims 1-21, allowing Kia and Toyota to challenge Emerging Automotive's patent. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Kleve/Hatton) supported the challenged limitations regarding encrypted data and privilege settings in vehicle access systems.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
The PTAB denied Roku's request to institute IPR against the '848 patent, finding that Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The denial hinged on the failure of the Petitioner to prove that key prior art (Seet) was entitled to its provisional filing date due to lack of written description support for non-audio media.
Roku, Inc. v.Anonymous Media Research Holdings, LLC
Roku's IPR against Anonymous Media Research Holdings was denied because the key prior art reference (Seet) lacked written description support for non-audio media, preventing it from qualifying as prior art to the challenged patent.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB found that the majority of claims (1-5 and 7-21) in the '659 patent were unpatentable based on combinations of prior art references. The Board specifically agreed with Petitioner's argument that Kleve combined with Hatton rendered independent claim 1 obvious, finding a reasonable expectation of success for POSITA.
Novartis Ag v.Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd
The suit seeks a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringement of Patent No. 210284, along with damages and other reliefs. The patent has expired, and the remaining issue pertains to the payment of damages.
Ht Process Controls Private Limited v.Ankur Gupta & Ors.
The petitioner, Ht Process Controls Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of its intellectual property rights over confidential information and technical know-how related to an automatic robotic system for gas cylinder handling. The Court passed several orders allowing various applications, including granting exemptions and directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct searches and seizures at the defendants' premises.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
Loreal India Pvt Ltd v.Rajesh Kumar Taneja Trading As Innovative Derma Care and Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Loreal India Pvt Ltd seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'CLARIWASH' registered in favor of Rajesh Kumar Taneja. Loreal argued that its predecessor used formative marks like 'CLARI-FI' and 'CLARIMOIST' prior to the registration, claiming deceptive similarity and prior use. However, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the original judgment, noting that the application was filed over 14 years ago and procedural errors alone were insufficient basis for cancellation.
Mrs Arti Gupta & Anr. v.Puran Rana & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Mrs Arti Gupta against Puran Rana, leading to the cancellation of the trademark 'KONVIO NEER' registered in Class 35. The court found that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the mark since 2018, while the respondent obtained registration much later in 2022. Citing provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the High Court ruled that the subsequent registration by the respondent was not made in good faith and constituted a contravention of statutory rights.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the Korean plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., for court-provided simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for September 5, 2024, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. The plaintiff, represented by German counsel, had filed the infringement action in German as the procedural language. The court addressed whether the court itself must provide interpretation services or whether the party must arrange and bear the cost of its own interpreter.
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Sri Durgai Oil Stores
M/S.Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. filed a civil suit against Sri Durgai Oil Stores alleging infringement of its 'Gold Winner' trademark and copyright related to edible sunflower oil packaging. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages for using deceptively similar marks like 'Son Gold'. However, the court noted that this matter had already been decreed by a Division Bench in 2019 based on the defendant's affidavit agreeing to cease such activities. Consequently, the current suit was dismissed as nothing remained to be adjudicated.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mrs. Karlin Pharmaceuticals & Exports Private Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, setting aside the trademark registration of 'CANDEX-B'. The court found that despite the respondent's claim of prior use, there was a clear likelihood of deception or confusion between the appellant's established mark 'CANDID' and 'CANDEX-B', especially given their use in dermatological pharmaceutical products. This decision reinforces the principle that consumer protection against confusion takes precedence over claims of concurrent use when marks are highly similar.
KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH v.TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerned a patent infringement action brought by KraussMaffei Extrusion GmbH against TROESTER GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 221 117. Following an oral hearing on April 16, 2024, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) of the Rules of Procedure, finding that the oral proceedings had not yet been concluded.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Apple entities (the appellants and defendants in the main infringement proceedings) to accelerate the appeal proceedings and shorten the time limit for filing the respondent's appeal response under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involves Apple's appeal of the Court of First Instance President's order dated June 18, 2024, which rejected Apple's request to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language of the patent EP 2263098). The Court of Appeal rejected the acceleration request, finding that Apple's interests in acceleration did not outweigh Ona Patents' interest in orderly proceedings.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
Jumio challenges the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against FaceTec’s biometric authentication patent. FaceTec’s counsel argues the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors and that parallel litigation does not warrant reversal. The response seeks denial of the petition for review.
Jumio Corporation v.FaceTec, Inc.
The PTAB denied Jumio Corp.’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving FaceTec’s patent 11,693,938. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.KP INNOVATIONS 2, LLC
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute inter partes review of claims 18‑21 of its communication‑service device patent. The petitioner argues the Board erred in claim construction and denied due‑process rights by refusing a preliminary reply.
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.