IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 90 of 159 · 4,764 total
Prabhu Soap Works v.The Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
Prabhu Soap Works challenged the department's demand for service tax levied on notional interest, arguing that permitting its wife's concern to use its registered brand names did not constitute a taxable Intellectual Property Service. The Tribunal found that since no consideration was charged for the alleged IPR service, the departmental assessment based on notional interest and cost-based valuation was unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Fives Combustion Systems P Ltd v.Vadodara-I
The appellant challenged the demand raised by the revenue regarding royalty payments made for technical knowhow supplied by a foreign company. The core issue was whether this payment constituted a taxable intellectual property service under Indian law, given that the service provider was not governed by any Indian law.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Respondent
Daedalus Prime LLC applied to withdraw its appeal against two of five respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH) in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, while continuing the appeal against the remaining three respondents. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, holding that the two respondents had a legitimate interest in the appeal being decided because they had been served with the Statement of claim, had responded to the appeal, and would be directly or indirectly affected by the outcome regarding service on affiliated companies.
Neo Wireless GmbH Co. KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld a decision that an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction was invalid because it was not lodged by all proprietors of all national parts of the European patent. Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG (Neo) had argued that the opt-out filed by Neo Wireless LLC (USA) for European patent EP 3876490 was valid, but the Court ruled that Article 83(3) UPCA requires all proprietors of all national parts to lodge the opt-out application. The appeal was rejected, and the revocation action brought by Toyota Motor Europe was allowed to proceed before the UPC.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Respondent
Nera Innovations Ltd. sought partial withdrawal of its appeal against two of four Xiaomi respondents (Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH), while continuing the appeal against Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. The appeal concerned a first-instance order from the Local Chamber Hamburg that had rejected Nera's requests to serve the complaint on two defendants via Xiaomi Germany. The Court of Appeal considered whether the partial withdrawal should be permitted, taking into account whether the statement of appeal grounds had already been served on the affected respondents and whether they had a legitimate interest in a decision being rendered in relation to them.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute between Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (plaintiff) and Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE (defendants). The defendants filed a further request under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to produce internal corporate Board of Directors resolutions relating to the authorization of powers of attorney and the transfer of the patent-in-suit. The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing the defendants were improperly shifting focus from the admissibility of self-dealing transactions to internal corporate decision-making. The text of the order is incomplete and does not contain the final ruling.
Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Shamrock Mobile GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Odiporo GmbH, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Tech v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
Panasonic Holdings Corporation filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities and related companies concerning European Patent EP 3 024 163 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants include Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., various Xiaomi Technology subsidiaries across Europe, Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co. Ltd., Odiporo GmbH, and Shamrock Mobile GmbH. The order was issued by the presiding judge Matthias Zigann as rapporteur, addressing preliminary procedural requests in the infringement proceedings.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon challenges Nokia's video coding patent (8204134) in an IPR, asserting that the claimed methods are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combinations of prior art references including Yagasaki, Oliver, Lyon, and Ran to demonstrate unpatentability across multiple claims.
AMAZON.COM, INC. et al. v.Nokia Technology Oy
Amazon's attempt to invalidate Nokia's video compression patent (8204134) failed at the PTAB. The Board denied institution, finding that Amazon could not prove obviousness over prior art like Yagasaki.
Dr. Nidhi Gulati v.M/s. Repro Books Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Repro Books Limited (and Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd.) for the unauthorized reproduction and sale of her copyrighted Ph.D thesis, "Construction of Childhood in Cinema," as a book. The court found that Defendant No. 1 infringed upon the exclusive rights of the plaintiff by selling a word-for-word copy without permission or royalty.
Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd v.M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited
The Madras High Court partially decreed the suit filed by Tintometer India Pvt.Ltd against M/s Wensar Weighing Scales Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court granted permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using or passing off the identical mark 'TINTOMETER' in relation to colorimeter products, and ordered the surrender of infringing materials for destruction. While rejecting the claim for specific damages, the court passed a preliminary decree compelling the defendants to render true accounts of profits made through the use of the disputed trademark.
Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
Ballinno B.V., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1 relating to a method and system for detecting offside situations, sought a preliminary injunction against UEFA and Kinexon entities in connection with the 'Connected Ball Technology' used at the UEFA European Football Championship 2024. The court denied the application, finding that the claimant had waited almost three months after learning of the alleged infringement without taking significant steps to investigate or obtain supporting documents, thereby failing to demonstrate the urgency required for a preliminary injunction.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture challenges Pioneer’s corn‑seed patent, arguing that the PTAB’s denial of institution improperly rewards secrecy of parent lines. The petitioner seeks Director Review to overturn the decision and prevent a precedent that could undermine disclosure in plant‑breeding patents.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The PTAB held that six of the challenged claims of Samsung Display’s ’593 OLED driver patent are obvious over the Tobita reference, while the remaining claims were upheld.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and affiliates filed a joint notice that a redacted version of the PTAB’s final written decision in Samsung Display’s OLED display patent case has been prepared. The redactions protect confidential material while allowing the decision to be filed.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster requests Director Review of a PTAB decision that found claims 8, 9, 12 and 13 of its toilet‑flush valve patent unpatentable. The patent owner argues the Board mis‑constructed the term “overflow tube” and that the cited prior art does not disclose it.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster successfully defended its toilet‑fill valve patent in an IPR Director Review, with the PTAB denying Danco’s request to overturn the Board’s claim construction and unpatentability findings.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks submits a corrected certification of word count and updated certificate of service for its IPR against R2 Solutions’ patent 8,190,610.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
The PTAB corrected its Final Written Decision for IPR2024‑00633, confirming that 11 of the 20 challenged claims of Fluidmaster’s toilet‑valve patent are unpatentable, while the remaining nine claims remain patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID have jointly moved to terminate four pending IPRs, including the one covering U.S. Patent 8,854,077, after reaching a settlement agreement and filing a dismissal in district court.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,854,077, leading to the termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential business information.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek and MOSAID jointly moved to terminate four inter partes review proceedings after settling their dispute through a license agreement and a district‑court dismissal.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
The PTAB denied Databricks' request for Director Review of the earlier decision that refused to institute its IPR against R2 Solutions' data‑processing patent. The Director recused herself, and the Deputy Under Secretary upheld the denial.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
PTAB notified Fluidmaster and Danco that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2024-00635. The petitioner may submit a limited 15‑page response addressing only the issues raised, with no new evidence allowed.
Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.
Inari Agriculture has petitioned the PTAB to review Pioneer Hi‑Bred’s corn‑variety patent, asserting that the claims are obvious, lack specific utility, and that the examiner mishandled a Rule 105 request for proprietary information.
Databricks, Inc. v.R2 Solutions LLC
Databricks, Inc. challenges R2 Solutions LLC's patent (8,190,610) in a Petition proceeding, arguing that the claimed enhancements to MapReduce are obvious. The petitioner contends that combining existing distributed processing techniques from Pike and Chowdhuri renders the claims predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Fluidmaster, Inc. v.Danco, Inc. et al.
Fluidmaster challenges the validity of a toilet fill valve patent (9103105) by asserting anticipation and obviousness. The petitioner argues that various combinations of prior art, including Guoxin in view of Ho and Schuster, render all 24 claims invalid. This petition is filed during concurrent litigation with Danco, Inc.
Mianyang BOE Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
The Petitioner challenges claims of the '9330593 patent using multiple obviousness grounds against various prior art references, including Kimura and Shin/Sasaki. The petition requests institution, arguing that co-pending litigation does not warrant discretionary denial.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek successfully petitioned to challenge 18 claims of MOSAID's patent (8854077) based on obviousness. The PTAB ruled in favor of institution, finding multiple grounds combining prior art references like Takahashi and Mizuno render the claims unpatentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek challenged MOSAID's patent (7051306) in an IPR, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over prior art references like Nowka and Nicol. The PTAB ultimately instituted the case after finding the petitioner satisfied Becton factors and overcame discretionary denial hurdles.
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.