IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 89 of 218 · 6,517 total
Ilooda Co., Ltd. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
Jeisys Medical Inc.'s IPR challenge against Serendia, LLC's '836 patent was instituted by the PTAB. The Board determined that the Petitioner's grounds of obviousness over prior art like Ganz were plausible and warranted further proceedings. This decision moves the dispute toward a trial phase in the medical device technology space.
Jeisys Medical Inc. et al. v.Serendia, LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR challenge against Serendia's '536 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability. The Board determined that prior art (Mehta) discloses the claimed depth control feature despite arguments for fixed-length needles.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging Samsung's patent claims against Advanced Coding Technologies over video compression technology. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently explained how prior art combined to teach key claimed elements, leading to institution on all claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully challenged four claims of Advanced Coding Technologies, LLC's patent (10218995) in the PTAB IPR proceeding. The Board found that the petitioner established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability based on obviousness over prior art references.
Alertus Technologies, LLC v.Desktop Alert, Inc.
The PTAB denied the IPR petition filed by Alertus Technologies against Desktop Alert, Inc.'s patent (9172765). The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness and anticipation challenges.
WIZ, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
The PTAB denied WIZ, Inc.'s IPR petition against Orca Security Ltd., finding that a statutory disclaimer covered all challenged claims.
AT&T Corp. et al. v.Daingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Bowmar Archery LLC v.Futtere, Matthew
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all unpatentability challenges against the broadhead patent. The Board upheld the patent owner's position on claim construction, specifically defining 'blade member' as having a cutting surface. Despite detailed arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references, the Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof.
Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India and Others
The writ petition challenged an administrative order denying the petitioner access to EV registration linkage data. The petitioner claimed this data was necessary to track sales and claim royalties under his patent related to electric car mechanisms. The court disposed of the petition, stating it had not expressed an opinion on the merits of the petitioner's rights and directing parties to pursue remedies in the appropriate forum.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the refusal of its patent application (no. 202217036137) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The court issued notice to the respondent and granted time for filing a reply, setting the matter for renotification.
Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This appeal was filed by Chia Tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Group Co Ltd against an order dated March 14, 2024, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The original application for patent (No. 202117022431) was rejected based on objections under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
University Of Florida Research Foundation Incorporated v.The Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
The petitioner filed an appeal challenging the refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs to grant a patent for application no. 202017034395, citing non-patentability under Section 3(b). The court first condoned the delay in filing the appeal before directing parties to file replies regarding the main appeal.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.The Controller of Patents
Boehringer Ingelheim International filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents' order dated April 24, 2024. The core issue is whether the patent application constitutes a valid divisional application under Section 16 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an interim exemption regarding document filing and listed the main appeal for further hearing.
INCYTE HOLDINGS CORPORATION v.DR REDDYS LABORATORIES LIMITED
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing copyright. The defendant raised defenses regarding service of documents and asserted that its activities are limited to permissible uses under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
L&T Valves Limited v.M/S Isteel
In a suit concerning trademark infringement, L&T Valves Limited successfully secured several interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court granted exemptions regarding pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing the plaintiff to proceed urgently. Crucially, the court passed an order for ex-parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to seize infringing material and inspect relevant documents, thereby providing immediate protection against alleged trademark misuse.
The World Community Services Centre v.Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust
The Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by The World Community Services Centre seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by Vetham Kuzhumam Spiritual Trust. The dispute, which involved specific service descriptions within Trademark Registration No. 3654426, was resolved amicably through a Joint Memorandum of Compromise signed by both parties. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to implement the terms of this compromise.
Charles And Keith International Pte Ltd v.Ambud Sharma & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the fashion house Charles And Keith, directing the cancellation of a similar trademark registration held by the respondent. The petitioner successfully argued that its established brand 'CHARLES & KEITH' and abbreviation 'C&K' was well-known and used extensively across various classes, including Class 09 for masks. Given the similarity and the petitioner's prior use, the Court cancelled the respondent's mark in Class 09, despite it being filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd against Ks Agro Impex. The court found that the defendant's use of a nearly identical packaging and mark ('ZARDA SPECIAL') created a significant likelihood of consumer confusion with the plaintiff's 'Zarda King' product. This ruling protects the plaintiff's trade dress, which was deemed both an original trade dress under the Trade Marks Act and an original artistic work under the Copyright Act.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
This case concerns a patent infringement action by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Xiaomi H.K. Limited regarding European Patent EP 2 568 724 before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The court addressed the issue of service of process when the Hague Service Convention receiving authority in Hong Kong refused service because the plaintiff referred to the defendant's location as 'Hong Kong' rather than the politically preferred 'Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.' The court ruled that all formal service methods under Rules 270-274 had been exhausted and ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, along with publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against Xiaomi H.K. Limited before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 207 270. After all formal service attempts under Rules 270-274 of the Rules of Procedure and the Hague Service Convention failed—because the Hong Kong receiving authority refused service on political grounds regarding the designation of Hong Kong—the court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 RoP, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service and ordering publication of the order on the court's homepage.
Amycel LLC v.[Defendant]
Amycel LLC, owner of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 directed to a hybrid Agaricus bisporus mushroom strain BR06 (sold as 'Heirloom'), sought provisional measures against a Polish mushroom farmer selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The Local Division The Hague found that mushroom strains are not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC, that the patent was valid and infringed, and granted the requested provisional measures including an injunction, delivery-up order, customer disclosure, and penalty payments, subject to Amycel providing EUR 200,000 in security.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom International Limited, Dexcom France SAS
This procedural order concerns an application by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. under Rule 191 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court, seeking an order requiring Dexcom entities to disclose the full distribution chain of the allegedly infringing Dexcom G6 and G7 Systems across all Relevant Contracting Member States. The Paris Local Division dismissed the application, finding it admissible in principle but not sufficiently justified or proportionate, given that Abbott had deliberately chosen to sue only one of many distributors. The Court held that Abbott could request more targeted information on the role of each defendant after a decision on the merits.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi H.K. Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on July 31, 2024, concerning European Patent EP 3 096 315, holding that all formal service attempts on Xiaomi H.K. Limited had been exhausted after the Hong Kong receiving authority refused to serve the documents on political grounds related to the designation of the defendant's address. The court ordered alternative service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure, recognizing the steps already taken as valid service, and directed publication of the order on the court's homepage.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding an application for intervention by Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1. The court admitted Chainzone's intervention on the defendant's side, subject to the condition that Chainzone deposit security for costs of EUR 134,000 by August 20, 2024, due to the risk of unenforceability of a cost decision in China.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. brought an infringement action against multiple Abbott entities alleging that their FreeStyle Libre 2 glucose monitoring system infringed EP 3 797 685 B1, which relates to communication systems between a sensor electronics unit and a display device in an analyte monitoring system. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation, and the Munich Local Division found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step over the prior art (Berman) when supplemented with common general knowledge. The patent was revoked in its entirety, auxiliary requests were dismissed, and all infringement claims were dismissed with costs borne by the claimant.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,740,926. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, which the Board granted, sealing the settlement agreement.
Wiz, Inc. v.Orca Security Ltd.
Wiz, Inc. and Orca Security jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations. The Board is asked to treat the agreement as business confidential information and restrict its access.
National Beef Packing Company, LLC v.Institute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes reviews covering patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486. The Board terminated the proceedings based on a written settlement agreement and granted confidentiality for the agreement.
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.