IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 79 of 159 · 4,764 total
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
Valve Corporation successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR, challenging Immersion Corporation's patent claims related to haptic feedback systems. The Board found preliminary evidence suggesting that prior art references (Banerjee, Meglan, Rogers) anticipate or render obvious key elements of the asserted claims.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Valve Corporation against Immersion Corporation regarding patent 8,749,507. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims are obvious in view of Astala and Shahoian, and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the patent claims unpatentable under both §102 and §103. The Board found that the prior art reference Rogers disclosed all limitations of the challenged claims, particularly regarding haptic output devices and sensor data integration in augmented reality systems.
Valve Corporation v.Immersion Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 claims of the Immersion patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board adopted the Petitioner's (Valve Corporation) arguments that various combinations of prior art references rendered the invention obvious.
Nord Lock Ab v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, alleging that the defendants were infringing two registered patents related to the manufacture of washers. The court issued notice and directed that if the defendants file a suit challenging the validity or non-infringement of these patents, it must be done within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Nokia Of America Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Nokia appealed the rejection of its patent application, arguing that the respondent's order failed to properly discuss the invention and how it was hit by obviousness. The court found that the Controller merely concluded that a person skilled in the art could calculate technical glitches using prior arts without adequately testing them against the claimed invention.
Castrol Limited v.Kapil & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction to Castrol Limited in its suit against Kapil & Anr., allowing the plaintiff to proceed with an ex-parte local commission. The court recognized that the defendants were allegedly manufacturing and selling counterfeit engine oils, infringing on Castrol's trademarks, trade dress, and copyrights related to their packaging. This order permits a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence of infringement.
V.Sundaresan & Ors. v.Varalakshmi Starch Industries Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.
The Madras High Court addressed multiple appeals and petitions concerning a trademark infringement dispute over the 'Varalakshmi' brand name used for sago/sabudana products. Recognizing the overlap between the appellate issues and the main suit, the Court directed the Commercial Court to expedite the original trademark suit within 16 weeks. Crucially, while vacating previous stays on proceedings, the High Court ensured that the existing interim order from the lower court would remain in effect until the final judgment of the main suit.
M/s.Babu Ram Om Prakash v.A.Manickavel
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition concerning the rectification of Trade Mark No. 502558 after both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The petition, which had been transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, was settled amicably between M/s. Babu Ram Om Prakash and A. Manickavel. This resolution allows the matter to be closed without further judicial intervention.
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Arcelormittal Investigacion Y Desarrollo SL appealed against an impugned order dated February 20, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original order refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 1908/DELNP/2015, citing lack of full disclosure and technical advancement. The High Court noted the submissions and directed parties to file replies.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a patent application (No. 6134/DELNP/2015). The rejection was based on the alleged lack of inventive constructional features and failure to meet novelty and inventive step criteria. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons, issuing a Writ of Mandamus against The Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought direction to accept an old renewal request (dated 27.03.2013) for their trademark due to alleged inaction by the Registry. The Court found that the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, was not provided to the proprietor. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to accept the renewal request and allow further renewals.
Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. v.Anand Aggarwal And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dongguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd., preventing the defendants from using the identical trademark 'HUALI'. The Plaintiff successfully argued that despite the Defendant securing a statutory registration, their prior and extensive common law usage established significant goodwill and market reputation for the mark. The court found that the Defendants' adoption was dishonest and likely to cause irreparable consumer confusion, thus protecting the Plaintiff's brand equity.
Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited v.Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Jk Lakshmi Cement Limited against Mr Satyawan Sehrawat & Anr. following a successful out-of-court settlement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged infringing the plaintiff's trademark rights and wrongly using 'J.K. Lakshmi Cement RMC'. The court formalized the agreement, which required the defendant to cease the wrongful use and surrender its GST registration obtained under the disputed trade name.
Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S B.R. Industries
The Meghalaya High Court admitted the appeal filed by Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order concerning alleged trademark infringement and costs. The appellant primarily sought reconsideration regarding the quantum of costs imposed. The court allowed the matter to proceed for further hearing, provided the appellant deposits Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within one week.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung’s post‑grant review of Oura’s smart‑ring patent (U.S. 11,874,702) was denied. The Board held that none of the 17 claims were obvious over the cited prior art, affirming the patent’s validity.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 13–15 and 17–20 of U.S. Patent 8,307,286 are unpatentable after finding the petitioner’s prior‑art references anticipate or render the claims obvious. The decision resolves the consolidated IPRs and denies the patent owner’s motions.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.WellcomeMat, LLC
Aylo Freesites successfully obtained institution of an IPR against WellcomeMat’s 8,307,286 patent covering video cue‑point editing for real‑estate marketing, with the Board finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and rejecting discretionary‑denial arguments.
Head Sport GmbH v.Vermont Safety Developments LLC
Vermont Safety Developments LLC successfully defended its ski‑binding patent against Head Sport GmbH’s IPR petition. The Board denied institution, finding the petition deficient in claim construction, §112(f) analysis, and obviousness particularity, and citing unfavorable discretionary factors.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and ASUS have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,291,052 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not yet decided the merits, and public policy favors termination after settlement.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v.MHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products and MHL Custom settled their IPR dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the review of patent 9,586,659. The settlement agreement was kept confidential under statutory provisions.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Dr. Squatch, LLC argues that the PTAB correctly found the challenged deodorant stick claims obvious and that the patent owner’s request for Director Review should be denied. The response emphasizes proper claim construction, prior‑art teachings, and complete RPI disclosure.
Dr. Squatch, LLC v.The Procter & Gamble Company
Procter & Gamble requests PTAB Director Review to overturn a decision that found its natural deodorant patent obvious. The company alleges the Board misapplied an extrinsic hardness test, ignored motivation to combine prior art, and the petitioner failed to disclose all real parties in interest.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170 before the Board could institute a trial. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the PTAB granted, dismissing the petitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
An email notifies that the PTAB has received a Director Review request in IPR2024-01083 and outlines strict response limits for Apple.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple submits an authorized response opposing Smith Interface Technologies' Director Review request, asserting that the PTAB correctly found motivation to combine prior art references. The brief emphasizes that Smith’s arguments mischaracterize the combination and lack undisputed technical evidence.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
Apple has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB's Final Written Decision that found its UI‑menu patent obvious. The patent owner argues the Board lacked a proper motivation analysis for combining the Ahn and Hinckley references. The petition seeks reversal of the decision.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Pictiva Displays has filed a Director Review request to overturn the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against Samsung Display’s ‘164 patent, arguing the Board ignored a full Fintiv analysis after a guidance memo was rescinded.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
Samsung and Asus have jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement materials confidential under statutory provisions, requesting the Board to separate the documents from the public file.
Google LLC v.Kove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,103,640 before the Board instituted a trial. The joint termination motion was granted, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
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.