IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 78 of 159 · 4,764 total
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi H.K v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 024 163 held by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies for alleged patent infringement. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich, with the statement of claim received on 31 July 2023 and served on the various defendants between 8 September and 19 September 2023. The order issued on 4 July 2024 by the presiding judge and rapporteur Matthias Zigann addresses an application for confidentiality/protection of trade secrets (Geheimnisschutz) within the patent infringement proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 568 724. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sued multiple Xiaomi entities and other defendants for patent infringement. The order provides technical guidance and questions to the parties to structure further proceedings, particularly addressing the defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement of specific patent features related to LTE standard implementations involving PUCCH and SRS transmissions.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott NV / SA, Abbott S.r.l., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott Diagnostics GmbH, Abbott France, Abbott B.V., Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott GmbH, Abbott Laboratories
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities concerning European Patent EP3435866, which relates to an analyte monitoring system (continuous glucose monitoring technology). The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Paris Local Division addressed jurisdictional questions regarding the scope of dispute, the applicability of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the validity of the patent, finding novelty and no added subject-matter, but concluding that the claimed invention lacked inventive step.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Saurav Chaudhary v.Union Of India & Anr.
Saurav Chaudhary challenged the abandonment of his patent application, "Blind-Stitch Sewing Machine," which occurred because he failed to file a response to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The court found that the negligence and lack of communication from the appointed Patent Agent constituted professional misconduct. Consequently, while the petition was disposed of, the court directed the CGPDTM office to initiate an enquiry against the defaulting Patent Agent and mandated the creation of a formal Code of Conduct for IP agents.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A has filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for its application (No. 201617028283). The refusal was based on the ground that the invention is not patentable under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, specifically concerning E-cigarettes.
M/S Jay Plastic Company & Ors. v.M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trade dress and trademark infringement suit filed by M/S Jay Plastic Company against M/S. Gurunanak Enterprises. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for an immediate local commission, allowing a Local Commissioner to search the defendants' premises and seize goods bearing deceptively similar packaging and marks (SPARROW vs ARROW). This decisive step allows the plaintiffs to gather crucial evidence of infringement and unfair competition while the main suit proceeds.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd v.M/S Triad Shoes
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd, which is pursuing a suit against M/S Triad Shoes for trademark infringement and passing off. The court allowed the plaintiff to proceed without mandatory pre-litigation mediation and exempted them from advance service requirements. Crucially, the court passed an urgent ex-parte ad-interim injunction, authorizing a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure at the defendant's premises to gather evidence of alleged infringing goods.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The appellant argued that the respondent's order was cryptic, failing to discuss prior arts or submitted evidence like a US patent grant. The High Court found merit in these arguments and allowed the appeal.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1, with Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG as plaintiff and Bette GmbH & Co. KG as defendant. The dispute involved issues of prior use rights, indirect patent infringement, remedies including recall and removal from distribution channels, disclosure of accounting books, and information requests. The court issued guiding principles on the territorial scope of prior use defenses, the procedural stage at which disclosure of books may be ordered, the scope of information rights during infringement proceedings, the distinction between recall and final removal from distribution channels, and the timing requirements for retroactive deadline extension requests.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Respondent
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned an application for provisional measures by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. regarding European Patent EP 2 393 417 B1, directed against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. The parties reached a settlement during the oral hearing, which the court confirmed pursuant to Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court also ordered a 20% refund of court fees to the Applicant and set the value of the application at 4,000,000 EUR.
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
This order concerns a dispute over access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings involving European Patent EP 2 479 680. Defendants AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, and AYLO Freesites Ltd sought to restrict the plaintiffs' (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) access to confidential information contained in their reply to the complaint dated 13 May 2024 and the attached annex BPV 5. The defendants argued that access should be limited to a maximum of three reliable natural persons on the plaintiffs' side, excluding their legal representatives, and that the three in-house counsel named by the plaintiffs were unsuitable due to the risk of misuse of confidential information for the plaintiffs' patent monetization program.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that found its MEMS gyroscope patent obvious. The patent owner contends the Board misidentified the key signal, relied on an unsupported modification, and ignored strong non‑obviousness evidence. Nintendo’s challenge is therefore under heightened scrutiny.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
American GNC requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found its foundational MEMS‑based IMU patent obvious. The patent owner alleges claim‑construction errors and ignored non‑obviousness evidence, while Nintendo relied on multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo filed an authorized response urging denial of a Director Review request on the PTAB’s Final Written Decision that found its IMU‑related claims obvious. The brief emphasizes the Board’s thorough analysis, weak secondary‑consideration evidence, and lack of a real‑party‑in‑interest claim.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s reply argues that claims 1 and 3 of American GNC’s MEMS gyroscope patent are obvious over several prior‑art references, supported by extensive expert testimony, and rejects the Patent Owner’s time‑bar and secondary‑consideration defenses.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB denied Nintendo’s petitions for Director Review of the final written decisions in two IPRs against American GNC’s patents, leaving the original rulings unchanged.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo challenges American GNC's angular rate sensor patent (6508122), arguing the claims are obvious over various prior art combinations. The petitioner asserts that combining references like Fujiyoshi with Townsend or Cox renders the claimed technology predictable in the field of MEMS sensors.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo successfully petitioned for institution against American GNC Corporation's patent claims regarding Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural challenges raised by the Patent Owner.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.
Universitat Ulm v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Universitat Ulm appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 645/CHENP/2011) concerning Opioids for Resistant Cancer Treatment. The High Court found the original order cryptic, noting that it failed to discuss prior arts or address specific submissions made by the appellant regarding synergistic effects and foreign patents. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh scrutiny.
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 5584/CHENP/2010). The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and exclusion as a computer program per se. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the invention possesses enhanced technical effect and meets the inventive step criteria.
Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited v.Arvind Fashions Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Bennet, Coleman & Company Limited against the trademark registration of 'NNNOW'. The dispute centered on removing specific descriptions of services from the impugned registration. Crucially, both parties reached a Joint Compromise Memo before the court. Consequently, the petitions were withdrawn, marking an amicable resolution to the intellectual property conflict.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Respondent
This case concerns a revocation action brought by Nokia Technology GmbH against European Patent EP 2 044 709 B1 owned by Mala Technologies Ltd. The dispute centered on a preliminary objection raised by Nokia, which sought to reject Mala Technologies' Application to amend the patent as inadmissible, arguing that the Defendant failed to initiate the correct workflow in the Case Management System in a timely manner. The Court denied Nokia's request, holding that the Application to amend was filed within the two-month time limit under Rule 49(1),(2) RoP and that the Rules of Procedure do not unambiguously require a separate workflow for such applications.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation, as defendant in an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, filed an application seeking rejection of the statement of claim as manifestly inadmissible. Microsoft argued that Suinno's representative could not be considered an independent counsellor under the Code of Conduct because he was also the named inventor, original applicant, and Managing Director of the patent's assignees. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the obligation to act as an independent counsellor can only be invoked by the represented party itself, not by the opposing party, and that performing administrative tasks does not per se render a representative non-independent.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory business‑confidential provisions, seeking to separate it from the public IPR file.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation have settled all disputes over U.S. Patent 11,317,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board has not yet issued an institution decision.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy and Purple Innovation reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Immersion Corporation's patent, challenging 17 claims based on anticipation and obviousness. The petition leverages three distinct prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) to argue that the claimed haptic AR/VR system is already known in the field.
Tempur Sealy International, Inc. et al. v.Purple Innovation, LLC
Tempur Sealy challenged Purple Innovation's '733 Patent, arguing that all 20 claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board has instituted the IPR proceedings, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the challenger on at least one claim.
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.