IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 76 of 218 · 6,517 total
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB granted Director Review and denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha Media. The denial was based on a prior district court finding that the challenged patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu successfully petitioned against Piranha Media Distribution's patent, arguing that key digital advertising insertion claims are obvious over prior art. The PTAB granted institution, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits for at least one claim.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
Hulu successfully petitioned PTAB, leading to institution of its IPR against Piranha Media Distribution. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable based on obviousness (103), specifically finding that combining prior art teachings from Wu and Doherty supports the Petitioner's claims in digital advertising insertion.
Hulu, LLC et al. v.Piranha Media Distribution, LLC
The PTAB denied institution of IPR for Hulu against Piranha, citing a prior district court ruling that the patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apple Inc. v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the challenged claims were unpatentable over prior art. The Board adopted Petitioner's construction of key terms like 'third party,' concluding that the claimed application is distinct from the trusted authority.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that the challenged claims were unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence, rejecting the Patent Owner's arguments against obviousness. The decision centered on whether prior art references (Ellis and Spivey) combined could teach all limitations of the claimed system for live event broadcasting.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable over combinations of prior art references (Ellis, Spivey, Herzog). The Board relied heavily on the combination of Ellis and Spivey to establish obviousness for Claim 1, particularly regarding low-latency data delivery via uniquely addressable event sockets.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found that claims 19-25 and 27-30 of the '687 patent were unpatentable over a combination of Ellis and Spivey, based on obviousness (Ground 1). The Board rejected an alternative ground involving Herzog, finding no motivation to combine those references.
Genius Sports Ltd. v.SportsCastr Inc.
The PTAB found claims 1-7 unpatentable over a combination of Ellis, Spivey, and Herzog, concluding that the claimed live video streaming system was obvious to a POSA. The Board specifically held that Spivey's topic queues satisfy the definition of an 'event socket.'
House Of Diagnostics Llp & Ors. v.House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction favoring the plaintiffs, House Of Diagnostics LLP, against House Of Pathology Labs Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case of idea infringement, noting that both parties operate in the highly similar field of diagnostic services and their marks are glaringly similar. The defendant was restrained from using 'House of Pathology' in connection with its diagnostic activities, pending further consideration of the main suit.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Kalra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.
Reckitt & Colman (Overseas) Hygiene Home Limited v.Ashok Kumar(S)/ John Doe(S)
In a major infringement suit concerning hygiene products, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs favoring the plaintiffs, Reckitt & Colman. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead Ashok Kumar and John Doe as defendants and sanctioned an extensive local commission to investigate counterfeiting activities related to brands like HARPIC and LIZOL. Furthermore, the court provided exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, paving the way for swift enforcement of their claims regarding trademark, copyright, design, and passing off infringement.
M/S Shree Vallabh Metals v.Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.
Magna International France, SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. v.Valeo Electrification
Procedural Order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 320 602 B1, addressing the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the Defendants' (Magna entities) request to classify certain information contained in their Objection and related exhibits as confidential, restricting access to a limited group of the Applicant's (Valeo Electrification) representatives. The court rejected Valeo's objection that the same information had already been publicly disclosed in Stuttgart Regional Court proceedings in 2023, finding that the information in question was different.
Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG and Others v.Ona Patents SL
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 263 098. The Apple entities appealed an order of the President of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Düsseldorf) rejecting their application to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellants' further submission filed on August 15, 2024, because the Rule 36 application seeking leave to file additional pleadings was submitted after the interim proceedings had already been closed on August 13, 2024.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Microsoft's request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP. Microsoft had sought review of a judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 July 2024 that rejected Microsoft's application under Rule 361 RoP to declare Suinno's patent infringement action manifestly inadmissible. The Court held that the request was inadmissible because the impugned order was a case management order issued by the judge-rapporteur, which can only be appealed if first reviewed by a panel under Rule 333.1 RoP.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This case concerns a discretionary review under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Aylo companies sought leave to appeal a decision by the Local Chamber Mannheim that granted three US-based in-house counsels of Dish and Sling access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the abstract risk of misuse by in-house counsels is insufficient to deny access absent concrete circumstances justifying such suspicion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Lama France
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European patents EP2089230 and EP1737669. The defendant LAMA France sought to exclude portions of the claimant HPDC's July 15, 2024 submission that addressed infringement issues, arguing these were outside the scope of the reply permitted under Rules 29(e) and 32.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, ordering that HPDC's submission be limited to point 3 (validity) and that LAMA's corresponding August 16, 2024 submission be limited to points 3 and 4.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Ballinno B.V. sought a stay of revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1 pending the outcome of its appeal against the denial of provisional measures by the UPC Local Division Hamburg. The Central Division (Paris Seat) rejected the request, holding that an appeal against the denial of provisional measures does not generally justify a stay of revocation proceedings under Rule 295(m) RoP. The court also rejected Ballinno's request for compensation of legal costs.
Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, and Aylo Freesites Ltd v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C.
Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application filed by the Aylo companies under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Aylo companies had applied for discretionary review of a decision of the Local Division Mannheim and sought leave to appeal, and after being heard under Rule 220.4 RoP, they filed a further application under Rule 9.1 RoP. The Standing Judge dismissed the application, holding that Rule 9.1 RoP does not grant parties an independent right to file applications on their own initiative, and that any further submissions beyond the application and response contemplated by Rule 220.4 RoP require admission by the Standing Judge.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB has sent a Director Review request to Biofrontera in IPR2024-01312, limiting the petitioner’s response to 15 pages and prohibiting new evidence. The petitioner must respond within five business days.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Sun Pharmaceutical seeks Director Review to overturn a PTAB decision that found several claims of its photodynamic‑therapy device patent unpatentable, arguing the Board mis‑constructed key claim terms and ignored ITC findings.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera’s petition to overturn the PTAB’s obviousness finding on its photodynamic‑therapy illumination patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the agreed‑upon claim construction was applied and that the prior‑art combination renders the claims obvious. The Director’s request for review was denied.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera's IPR challenge against Sun Pharmaceutical regarding photodynamic therapy illuminators was instituted by the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over Lundahl and Larsen, focusing on combining prior art elements for flexible device design.
Biofrontera Incorporated et al. v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining prior art references (Lundahl and Larsen) rendered the illuminator system obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA).
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Kawakami, Shigeki & Ors. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application. The core issue was that the rejection was based on a ground (lack of novelty) which was not included in the initial hearing notice, violating the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court found that since the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to address this specific objection, the impugned order suffered from procedural irregularities.
Archidply Industries Limited v.Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archidply Industries Limited against Archit Nuwood Industries Private Limited. While granting minor procedural exemptions and directing the transfer of court fees, the Court primarily focused on moving the main dispute forward. The matter was formally registered as a suit for infringement and passing off under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and subsequently referred to the High Court's Mediation Centre to explore an out-of-court settlement.
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.