IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 76 of 159 · 4,764 total
MediaTek Inc. v.DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
MediaTek has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 21 claims of Daedalus Prime’s ‘281 patent on the ground of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and asks the PTAB to institute the review.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics and Biognosys have filed an IPR petition challenging 11 claims of the ’360 patent, asserting that the nanoparticle‑based protein assay is fully anticipated or obvious over prior publications by Hu, Cai, and Zaccaria.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings against Mullen Industries LLC's patent on location services, despite initial concerns about discretionary denial. The Board found that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on strong arguments regarding prior art obviousness and key claim construction terms.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Mullen Industries LLC's patent covering location services and tracking. The Board found sufficient evidence of non-obviousness, despite parallel district court litigation, leading to the institution of all 30 claims.
Google LLC et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
The Director denied institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) involving Google and Mullen Industries. The decision vacated the initial grant of institution based on a holistic review of Fintiv factors.
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
PreOmics GmbH et al. successfully petitioned for institution in the IPR against The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc., challenging claims related to sensor arrays for protein corona analysis. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
PreOmics GmbH et al. v.The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc.
The Board found that six claims (1, 4, 6, 17, 22, and 25) of the patent were unpatentable based on anticipation by prior art Cai. The decision hinged on a broad interpretation of key terms like 'biological sample' and 'subset of particles,' which favored the Petitioner's arguments regarding the scope of the claims.
Pramit Sanghavi v.Energy Beverages Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in a suit concerning design infringement. The plaintiff, Pramit Sanghavi (representing market leaders in packaged natural mineral water), alleged that the defendant was imitating their registered bottle designs (Nos. 281573 and 311139) for their product "NU". After considering the prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the Court granted an interim injunction to protect the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights.
Bristol Myers Squibb Company v.Deputy Controller of Patents, Patent Office
Bristol Myers Squibb appealed the rejection of its patent application for a new hemisulphate salt of Compound (I), which was based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant argued that the compound demonstrated enhanced bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy compared to the free base form. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different officer.
Pfizer Inc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Pfizer Inc has filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 27, 2024, which refused to grant a patent. Pfizer contends that the refusal was arbitrary, incorrectly concluding that the subject matter lacked technical advancement or failed Section 3(d) requirements.
Varun Chopra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Varun Chopra against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf. The court allowed the main suit to proceed after resolving jurisdictional issues and granting various procedural exemptions, including those related to document filing and advance service. Crucially, the court referred the dispute to mediation, encouraging the parties to explore an amicable settlement despite the clear allegations of passing off and trademark infringement.
Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd v.Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Spread Home Products Pvt. Ltd in its suit against Homescapes @ Kesri Transcontinental regarding the alleged infringement of 'DOCTOR PILLOW'. The court allowed an ex-parte appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises, aiming to gather evidence of counterfeit products. Furthermore, the court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and condoned a delay in filing the suit, paving the way for the main litigation.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by Panasonic Holdings Corporation for confidentiality protection under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding information contained in the unredacted version of its reply and attachments, as well as negotiations between the parties, in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. The defendants (OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.) objected to the scope of the requested confidentiality regime, arguing it should extend to all related proceedings, permit information sharing with external counsel in parallel UK proceedings, and allow additional employees access. The matter was decided by the Presiding and Reporting Judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim.
OROPE Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order extending the defendant's deadlines for filing its reply to the rejoinder on the FRAND-related statement of defense and its rejoinder on the response to the FRAND counterclaim. The deadlines, originally set to expire on July 17, 2024, were extended to August 14, 2024, following the final decision on the confidentiality protection regime. The court found the extension necessary and sufficient for the defendant to take a final position on the FRAND aspect of the dispute.
Immersion Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
The case involves a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the plaintiff's patent titled 'Haptic Feedback System with Stored Effects', along with claims for damages and rendition of accounts. An amicable resolution was reached between the parties during the proceedings.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Spv Laboratories Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated June 14, 2024, issued by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on non-compliance with requirements under Section 60(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, due to failure to pay the renewal fee within the statutory period.
Vifor (International) Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Ors
Vifor (International) Ag filed an appeal against an order dated November 1, 2023, along with an application seeking condonation of a 32-day delay. The appellant argued the delay was due to technical difficulties in obtaining and stamping a Power of Attorney received from Switzerland. The court found that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and allowed the application.
Modi Paints And Varnish Works v.Sanjay Gupta And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a petition for the rectification and removal of the 'MODI CRYL' trademark. The court found that the trademark, registered in the name of Sanjay Gupta, had lapsed as its renewal was due but never completed after May 21, 2018. Since the mark was no longer subsisting, the petitioner's request for its removal was satisfied.
M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited v.Mr. Mukesh Goyal and others
The Chhattisgarh High Court admitted an appeal challenging a lower court's rejection of an interim injunction application concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant, M/S Shri Bajrang Power And Ispat Limited (owner of GOEL), argued that the respondents were deceptively using 'GOYAL GLOBAL' in the steel goods market to capitalize on its goodwill. While directing the Commercial Court to decide the main suit expeditiously, the High Court maintained an interim restraint order preventing the named respondents from using the disputed marks until the final judgment.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.Respondent
This case concerns an infringement action before the Local Division Brussels regarding European Patent EP 2 331 036. The Defendants filed a Generic Procedural Application on June 24, 2024, objecting to the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence. The dispute centers on whether the Claimant may supplement the factual framework, add an equivalence-based infringement argument, and adjust the prayer for relief in his Reply. The Judge-Rapporteur issued a definitive procedural order on July 8, 2024, following a provisional order of June 25, 2024 that invited further submissions from both parties.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,775,326, jointly moving to terminate the proceeding.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security Ltd. jointly filed a request with the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. §317(b) and related regulations. The request seeks to limit access to the agreement to the parties and the Board.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security reached a confidential settlement that led the PTAB to terminate the IPR on patent 11,775,326. All pending motions were dismissed as moot and the settlement documents were sealed.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz challenged Orca Security Ltd.'s cloud security patents, arguing that the claimed vulnerability scanning methods are obvious combinations of known techniques. The petitioner asserts that merging Veselov's snapshot scanning with Basavapatna's risk assessment renders the invention predictable.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Orca Security Ltd.'s patent (11775326), covering 28 claims related to cloud vulnerability scanning. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that the claims are obvious over Veselov and Basavapatna.
Ttk Prestige Limited v.Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for infringing on its design registration for the Svachh Deluxe Alpha pressure cooker. The defendant was set ex-parte after failing to respond adequately to the claims.
Bia Separations D.O.O. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Bia Separations D.O.O. appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.185/CHENP/2009 for 'METHOD FOR INFLUENZA VIRUS PURIFICATION'. The appeal challenged the Controller's finding that the invention lacked inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.
Sapporo Medical University v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Sapporo Medical University appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No.1899/CHENP/2010 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection order was cryptic and failed to properly consider the prior art or the detailed explanations provided regarding inventive step. The High Court found the respondent's conclusion unsupported by material and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
3M Innovative Properties Company v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 20174704977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, arguing that the invention was a computer program/implementable method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection (computer program vs. mathematical/statistical), leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 201747024977) by the Controller, which cited Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, claiming the invention was a non-technical computer program or mathematical method. The High Court found that the Controller failed to narrow down the reasoning and deprived the appellant of a fair opportunity to respond to the specific objection, leading to the matter being remanded for fresh consideration.
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.