IP Cases — 2024
6,517 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 93 of 218 · 6,517 total
CommScope Technologies LLC et al. v.Belden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Belden Canada ULC's patent, asserting obviousness and anticipation over prior art references including Fukui. The Board found Petitioner’s arguments persuasive regarding the technical scope of the modular fiber optic cassette system.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical regarding a neurotomy system patent (10925664). The Board found reasonable likelihood of success on the obviousness grounds, targeting claims 1-29.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Stratus Medical's RF neurotomy patent (10736688). The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, allowing the case to proceed to trial.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Stratus Medical, LLC's '688 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success based on obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103) using prior art combinations like Racz and Lee.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
Avanos Medical successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Stratus Medical's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found sufficient evidence that the claimed RF neurotomy features could be achieved by combining existing prior art references.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully secured the institution of its IPR against Pictiva Displays regarding key claims of a passive electronic component patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on several grounds, particularly over Hanamura, allowing the case to proceed to the merits phase.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for an IPR challenging ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.'s patent related to beamforming in wireless communications. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate 'compelling merits' despite arguments regarding obviousness.
Thermaltake Technology Co., Ltd. et al. v.Chen, Chien-Hao et al.
The Board found that all originally challenged claims (1-5) were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on prior art combinations. Furthermore, the Patent Owner's Revised Motion to Amend was denied because proposed substitute claims lacked written description support for a key limitation.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found all 29 challenged claims unpatentable by a preponderance of evidence. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's argument that the invention was limited to RF neurotomy, adopting Petitioner's broader view of 'thermal ablation systems.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB found that the claims were unpatentable over Racz, Fitz, and Lee based on obviousness (103). The Board adopted Petitioner's broad definition of 'thermal ablation systems,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow focus on 'RF neurotomy.'
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that Claims 1-17 and 48-52 are unpatentable based on obviousness. The Board found that the combination of prior art references (Racz, Fitz, Lee) was an obvious modification to create functional RF neurotomy devices.
Avanos Medical, Inc. v.Stratus Medical, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 27 challenged claims unpatentable based on obviousness over prior art (Racz, Fitz, Lee). The Board adopted the Petitioner's broad definition of POSA in the field of thermal ablation systems.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201948026247) by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Delhi. The appeal argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Syngenta Limited vs. Controller of Patents and Designs. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal.
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mae Maschinen-und Apparatebau G?tzen GmbH appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201748028185) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant argued that the rejection disregarded a precedent set by the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court agreed, finding the rejection contrary to established law.
Victaulic Company v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application, which had been rejected by the Controller despite prior rulings from the Delhi High Court regarding divisional applications. The Madras High Court found that the Controller disregarded established legal precedent and allowed the appeal.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited v.Jagpin Brewerise Limited
In this trademark infringement matter, the Bombay High Court addressed motions filed by the defendant seeking to introduce a plea of invalidity. The court noted that since the defendants were uninterested in pursuing the current motions and had discharged their counsel twice, it was appropriate to dismiss the pending Chamber Summons and Notices of Motion for now. Furthermore, the court reinforced established Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that while rectification applications exist, the Civil Court must first determine the prima facie validity of the trademark before granting a stay on the suit.
Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited v.Idealpe Matrix Private Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark passing off suit filed by Ideal Prepaid India Private Limited against Idealpe Matrix Private Limited. While granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and directed that summons be issued to the defendants. The order also detailed the plaintiffs' claims regarding their prior use of the 'FRONTIER' mark across various domains and products, setting the stage for the substantive trial.
Anupam Saxena v.Shiv Verma Trading As Marksons Herbal Life & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Anupam Saxena against Shiv Verma Trading As Marksons Herbal Life & Ors. The court found that the plaintiff's brand 'ADIBASI Hair Oil,' along with its distinctive trade dress and packaging, constitutes a valid registered trademark and original artistic work under copyright law. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing or selling products deceptively similar to ADIBASI until the final hearing, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation.
Scrum Alliance, Inc. v.M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Scrum Alliance, Inc. against M/S Henry Harvin India Education Inc. and others. The court found a prima facie case that the defendants were deceptively adopting trademarks like 'CSM' and 'Certified Scrum Master' for education services, misleading the public into believing they were affiliated with the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using these confusingly similar marks until the final hearing.
Nirmal Seeds Private Limited v.M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation
The Delhi High Court allowed a joint application leading to a consent decree between Nirmal Seeds Private Limited and M/S Nirmal Seeds Corporation. The settlement formalized that the Plaintiff is the proprietor of the 'NIRMAL' trademark for seeds and agro products, and the Defendant agreed not to manufacture or market similar goods using deceptive trademarks. In exchange for these undertakings, the Plaintiff dropped its claims for damages, and the Court also ordered a 50% refund of the plaintiff's court fees.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft v.M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft against M/S Real 100 Agro India Private Limited. The court granted permanent injunctions and authorized the immediate seizure of goods bearing deceptively similar marks at the defendants' premises. Furthermore, it appointed Local Commissioners to inspect inventory and books of accounts related to the alleged infringement, providing strong protection for Hell Energy's brand in the Indian market.
Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd. v.Jagpin Breweries Limited
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against Jagpin Breweries Limited for infringing registered trademarks 'HAYWARDS 5000' and 'FIVE THOUSAND'. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'COX 5001' constituted both trademark infringement and passing off in relation to beer. Furthermore, due to the Defendant's persistent non-appearance during the proceedings, the Plaintiff was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the suit filed by Havells India Ltd against Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors. The core dispute involves alleged fraudulent investment schemes operating under the 'HAVELLS' brand name. Crucially, the court issued significant interim directions, ordering defendants to block access to infringing websites and provide complete disclosure/block of KYC details associated with accounts used for these illegal activities. Furthermore, procedural matters were settled, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of electronic evidence.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
This is a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendant (Harvard) sought to introduce further written submissions and two expert reports shortly before the oral hearing, prompted by the German Federal Patent Court's revocation of the German part of the patent. The Judge-rapporteur dismissed the request, holding that it violated the front-loaded character of UPC proceedings and would unfairly prejudice the Claimant.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 028 981. The defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) filed a Rule 9 RoP application requesting permission to submit video recordings (Exhibits D 7b and D 7c) on USB sticks because their file size exceeded the CMS upload limit. The court granted the request and provided detailed procedural instructions for submitting physical exhibits.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Daedalus Prime LLC against Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V. and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH regarding EP2792100. The Xiaomi defendants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation, citing the need to obtain technical information from MediaTek under restrictive confidentiality obligations. The court rejected the request, finding that the defendants had not demonstrated exceptional reasons justifying an extension beyond the already adequate time limits provided under the Rules of Procedure.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLC v.ZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS challenges ZipString LLC's string shooter patents (11674774) alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, particularly fibrous surface textures for drag generation, are anticipated or obvious based on prior art combining existing designs with known aerodynamic principles.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Croga Innovations Ltd.
Cisco Systems initiated an Inter Partes Review against Croga Innovations Ltd.'s patent 10601780, challenging claims related to network security and virtualization. The petitioner successfully argued that the claimed features were obvious in view of prior art references, leading to the institution of the IPR proceedings.
AT&T Enterprises, LLC et al. v.Innovative Sonic Limited
Petitioners including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson have filed an IPR challenging 22 claims of a patent related to Handover and Carrier Aggregation. The core argument is that the challenged claims are obvious when combining prior art references like Nokia or Ericsson with relevant 3GPP standards. This filing initiates a major challenge against the patent's validity.
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.