IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 77 of 218 · 6,517 total
Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order modifying a prior decision in the trademark dispute between Mrs. Shubhangi S. Jachak and Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr. The modification allows Respondent No. 1 to bring on record several crucial additional documents related to ownership changes, examination objections, and responses filed with the Trademark Registry. This procedural step is significant as it introduces detailed evidence regarding trademark assignment timelines and prior rejection grounds into the ongoing litigation.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action regarding EP3769722. The Defendants (Meril entities and others) requested a stay of proceedings pending an EPO opposition decision, while the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) opposed the stay. The Court dismissed the request, holding that Rule 118.2(b) RoP applies only during oral procedure, a rapid EPO decision could not be expected, and the UPC could itself decide validity given the pending counterclaims for revocation.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited and Others v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Defendants (Meril Life Sciences and related entities) for the Claimant (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation) to provide security for legal costs in an infringement action concerning EP3769722. The Defendants argued that security was warranted because the Claimant is based in the United States, outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order potentially difficult. The court dismissed the application, holding that the Claimant's location outside the EU and the lack of experience enforcing UPC orders in the US are not sufficient grounds for ordering security, and that the balance of interests favored the Claimant.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy challenges Exact Sciences’ colorectal‑cancer fecal‑testing patent (U.S. 11,970,746) in an IPR. The petitioner’s response argues that the patent owner waived any new claim‑construction arguments and that the Board’s obviousness findings are well‑supported. The document urges the Director to deny the request for review.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of Exact Sciences' 11,634,781 patent are obvious over prior art, rendering them unpatentable. Geneoscopy successfully proved the combination of existing fecal screening methods made the claims non‑inventive.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Exact Sciences seeks Director Review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found its at‑home stool‑based colorectal cancer screening patent unpatentable. The request argues the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions and reliance on contradictory expert testimony violated Board policy.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
Geneoscopy has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 12‑19 of Exact Sciences’ ’746 patent on the grounds of obviousness and lack of novelty, citing multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 22 claims of Proxense’s biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and asserting that discretionary denial is improper.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Proxense’s ’730 biometric authentication patent, asserting obviousness over the Ludtke and Kon references and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 15 claims of Proxense’s ’905 biometric authentication patent, arguing obviousness over prior art Ludtke and Kon and opposing discretionary denial.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB instituted an IPR in a colorectal cancer screening case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Geneoscopy's challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board accepted the petitioner's argument that combinations of various prior art references teach every limitation of the claims with a reason for combination.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Proxense's patent 8,886,954. The denial was based on a procedural condition that required prior non-institution in a related proceeding.
Microsoft Corporation v.Proxense, LLC
The PTAB denied Microsoft's request to institute Inter Partes Review against Proxense's patent because a related review was already underway.
Geneoscopy, Inc. v.Exact Sciences Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Petitioner successfully argued that the claimed colorectal cancer screening method was obvious when combining various prior art references, including Lenhard, Vilkin, Itzkowitz, and Kanaoka.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Jyotiben Hareshbhai Chovatiya and Ors.
The Plaintiff sought permission to add several associated entities (Defendants No. 4 to 6) as party defendants, alleging they were involved in dealing with goods bearing an impugned trade mark 'NEUROGABA'. The Court found that these parties were necessary and proper for the adjudication of the matter.
Ulink Agritech Private Ltd. v.Sml Limited & Others
The appellant challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the Single Judge, which restrained them from infringing Patent No. 282092 (covering 'SELZIC'). The core legal issue was whether the Single Judge's order contained adequate reasons as mandated by proviso to Order 39 Rule 3 CPC. The High Court found that the conclusion of a prima facie case was not preceded by any proper reasoning, leading to the setting aside and remittance of the injunction.
Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect under R.223 RoP in a patent dispute concerning EP 2 713 879. The appellants (Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V.) appealed a preliminary injunction order issued by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The Court of Appeal found the first instance order manifestly erroneous insofar as it extended to Ireland, since Ireland had signed but not ratified the UPCA and was therefore not a Contracting Member State.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd v.Ashok Kumar Anr.
Krishna Chandra Dutta (Spice) Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against Ashok Kumar Anr. for infringing their registered trademark 'COOKME'. The plaintiffs alleged that they only discovered the infringement in July 2024, necessitating urgent legal action. The Calcutta High Court granted leave to proceed with the suit under various provisions, including Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, allowing the plaint to be admitted subject to departmental scrutiny.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed a procedural dispute in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. The defendants (ASUSTek, Arvato, and Digital River) sought an order requiring the applicant (Ericsson) to comply with Rule 13.1(h) of the Rules of Procedure and to produce copies of prior art, pleadings, statements of case, and expert reports from referenced proceedings. The Court dismissed the defendants' request, finding that Ericsson had complied with R. 13.1(h) RoP and that the rule requires only information, not annexes or evidence.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, and Sormedica UAB
This is a procedural order from the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 628 464. The proceedings had been stayed pending the written decision of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (TBA), which subsequently rejected the appeal as inadmissible and remitted the case to the EPO Opposition Division with an order to maintain the patent in amended form. The court set a timetable for the resumption of proceedings, requiring the claimant to file an amended statement of claim within 14 days and the defendants to file an amended defence and counterclaim for revocation within 42 days.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion cites statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and public‑policy reasons favoring settlement.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google (challenger) failed to prove obviousness of Touchstream's 2013 smart‑TV control patent. The PTAB affirmed all challenged claims, leaving the patent fully intact.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Google’s inter partes review of Touchstream’s ’251 patent failed; the Board found no unpatentable subject matter for claims 1, 2, and 5‑9. The petition relied on Muthukumarasamy and Hayward, but the Board concluded the references did not teach the required signal flow or media‑player identification.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its IPR against Touchstream's streaming patent, arguing the case is still in the preliminary stage and withdrawal would save resources. The patent owner does not object, and the Board has yet to rule.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,910,983. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding and to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Omachron’s vacuum‑cleaner patent (US 11,910,983). The petition alleges obviousness over four prior‑art references and argues discretionary factors favor institution.
Altice USA, Inc. et al. v.Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
Altice USA filed a petition challenging claims of Touchstream Technologies' patent via an IPR proceeding focused on obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that Claims 1-20 are rendered obvious by combining prior art references such as Aldrey and Mahajan. This petition was subsequently joined into an already instituted IPR, continuing the dispute over media content control technology.
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.