IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 92 of 159 · 4,764 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of all 16 claims of Oura’s wearable ring patent, arguing obviousness over three prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
Juniper Networks filed a Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,014,394 held by Portsmouth Network Corporation. The petition asserts that several claims related to multicast routing and switch fabric are obvious over prior art references Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng, and Rao under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This proceeding addresses the core validity of networking technology patents.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,554,126 held by Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting that the LED claims are unpatentable. The petition relies heavily on grounds of anticipation and obviousness using multiple prior art references. This challenge targets numerous structural features within light emitting diode technology.
SHENZHEN ROOT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. et al. v.Chiaro Technology Ltd.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. has filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,413,380 held by Chiaro Technology Ltd. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that the claimed features of the breast pump are combinations of existing prior art references like Chang, Weber, and Guthrie.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging all 22 claims of Oura Health's '147 Patent, alleging obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The challenge relies on multiple combinations of prior art references, including Yuen, Schröder, and Mestas.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's U.S. Patent No. 10,893,833, asserting that all twelve claims are obvious over prior art references Yuen and Schröder. The petitioner grounds its challenge entirely on Section 103 (obviousness), arguing various combinations of the cited patents render the claims invalid. The petition also addresses discretionary denial issues under §314(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. has filed a petition challenging Oura Health Oy's patent for a wearable computing device, arguing that the invention is unpatentable over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that combining references such as Schröder and Yuen renders the claimed finger ring obvious, covering both anticipation (102) and obviousness (103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to challenge Oura Health's patent (11868178) in a PGR proceeding, leading the PTAB to institute the case. The Board found Petitioner's arguments regarding prior art disclosures for battery and PCB placement sufficient to proceed to trial.
AT&T Services Inc. et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
AT&T Services Inc. failed to convince the PTAB that its claims were unpatentable over prior art references Centonza and Han. The Board denied institution, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing on either anticipation or obviousness grounds. This decision maintains the validity of Innovative Sonic Limited's patent in cellular network connectivity.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition filed by Juniper Networks against Portsmouth Network Corporation, finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on multiple grounds. The Board specifically accepted arguments that challenged claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and others based on obviousness over Blease in view of Weyman and Hu.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR petition challenging claims in a semiconductor device patent, citing failure to meet the particularity requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). The Board found that several grounds were voluminous and excessive, particularly those involving complex prior art combinations.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.Active Wireless Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution for Ericsson Inc. et al.'s IPR challenge against Active Wireless Technologies LLC, finding compelling evidence of unpatentability under 102 and 103. The Board determined that the preliminary record supported a meritorious challenge regarding HARQ-ACK feedback mechanisms in 5G NR PUCCH format adaptation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR filed by Samsung against Oura Health because the patent owner had formally disclaimed all 12 challenged claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Oura Health regarding the 'Wearable Computing Device' patent (9582034). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on grounds of obviousness over LeBoeuf.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Oura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB found that several claims related to finger-worn monitoring devices were unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'substantially transparent external potting,' which aided the Petitioner's argument of obviousness.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that ten of the fifteen challenged claims were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on various combinations of prior art references (Blease, Weyman, Hu, Deng). The Board found sufficient motivation to combine Blease and Weyman for distributed architecture features, while also finding that combining Blease/Weyman with Hu was plausible for bandwidth efficiency improvements.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technolgy Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile appealed a judgment regarding the payment and security requirements for using Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) held by Interdigital. The dispute centered on whether the appellants were unduly penalized for non-compliance with previous consent terms involving global bank guarantees. The Court issued directions requiring the defendants to furnish an unconditional bank guarantee from an Indian public sector bank instead of relying solely on foreign guarantees, allowing them continued use of the SEPs.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
The Appellant, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201617008869 by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The High Court issued notice and set a date for re-notification to hear the matter.
Ashim Gujral v.Moti Mahal Delux Management Services Private Limited & Anr.
Ashim Gujral has initiated legal action against Moti Mahal Delux Management Services regarding the registration of the trademark 'MOTI MAHAL GROUP'. The petitioner asserts co-ownership of the 'MOTI MAHAL' mark and claims that Respondent No. 1 obtained the impugned registration by making false statements, relying on the petitioner's rights without consent. The court has issued notice to both parties, setting the stage for formal opposition proceedings.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v.Mr. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal of an allegedly infringing trademark, 'RAPIDO' (No. 4459206), registered in Class 39. The Delhi High Court proceeded with issuing notice to all permissible parties, setting the matter for return on September 24, 2024. While procedural applications regarding document filing were addressed, the core dispute over trademark cancellation is now moving forward.
GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. v.Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by GTZ India Pvt. Ltd. against a commercial court order that granted an injunction to Artek Surfins Chemicals Ltd. The dispute centered on the use of specific alphanumeric codes (e.g., '786', '2048M') in chemical products. The court found prima facie evidence that GTZ copied these unique alpha numerals, which are used by Artek as source identifiers for their goods, thereby establishing a case of both trademark infringement and passing off.
Ranjit Prasad Mathuri v.Gopal Choudhary & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Ranjit Prasad Mathuri, against the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement concerning his 'GS GULAB BIDI 755' mark. This immediate relief restrains the defendants from manufacturing or dealing in bidis using marks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark, pending further proceedings.
Malhotra Surgical Industries v.Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.
In this trademark infringement matter, the Delhi High Court issued interim directions concerning the online sale of 'MICROTONE' products. While the defendant undertook not to sell or distribute the impugned goods, the plaintiff noted that the products remained available on various e-commerce platforms. Consequently, the court directed both parties to file detailed affidavits—the plaintiff detailing current infringing listings and the defendants naming all distributors—to allow for further appropriate judicial action.
Jrpl Riceland Llp v.Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction favoring Jrpl Riceland LLP against Crop India Agro Pvt Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's subsequent adoption of a deceptively similar trademark ('2') for rice constituted passing off, given the Plaintiff's established goodwill and senior user status with their mark ('9090'). This interim relief prevents the defendant from using the infringing mark while the main suit proceeds.
Radico Khaitan Ltd v.Superior Industries Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Radico Khaitan Ltd against Superior Industries Ltd. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'GREAT GRAND MASTI' for alcoholic beverages was highly likely to cause confusion and constitute trademark infringement or passing off against the Plaintiff's established mark, 'MASTIH'. This interim order immediately restricts the defendant from manufacturing or selling products bearing the impugned marks until the final hearing.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking interim relief against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 by the defendant's manufacturing and sale of generic versions of Empagliflozin and related formulations, including products sold under the trade mark 'Linares-E'.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs, Boehringer Ingelheim (through its Power of Attorney Holder), filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Eris Lifesciences Limited. The suit concerns alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 268846 related to the medicinal product Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and granted the requested restraint.
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.