IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 94 of 159 · 4,764 total
Ds Agrifoods Private Limited v.M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favor of Ds Agrifoods Private Limited against M/S Singhal Enterprises & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of the mark 'DOODMALAI' and its associated trade dress was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's established trademark 'DOONMALAI'. Given the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity, coupled with a prior business relationship suggesting bad faith, the court ruled that the Defendants were passing off their goods. This interim order protects the Plaintiff's market standing until the final hearing.
Tata Sia Airlines Limited v.Vistara Property Services Llp
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tata Sia Airlines Limited against Vistara Property Services Llp. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding trademark infringement, specifically concerning the use of 'VISTARA GETAWAYS' and similar marks by the defendant across various online platforms. This immediate relief aims to prevent irreparable harm while the main suit proceeds.
Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft. & Anr. v.National Internet Exchange Of India (NIXI) & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted urgent interim relief in favor of Hell Energy Magyarorszag Kft., addressing the misuse of its 'HELL' trademark by imposters operating fraudulent websites. The court directed domain registrars to block infringing domains, mandated banks to freeze suspicious accounts, and ordered telecom providers and government agencies (MeitY/DoT) to take steps to disable mobile numbers and block website access. This decisive order aims to protect the plaintiff's brand reputation and prevent further financial fraud.
Abbott Products Operations Ag v.Mr. Muheen Khan & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Abbott Products Operations Ag to cancel the trademark registration 'DUFAKWIK' (No. 4459400) in Class 05. The cancellation was achieved through a mutual agreement, as both parties agreed that the mark should be removed from the Register without any claim for damages. This order provides a clear example of how IP disputes can be resolved efficiently through negotiated settlements before the court.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia and Toyota challenge a patent owner's request to overturn a PTAB decision on a vehicle e‑key system, arguing the Board correctly applied the Kleve prior art. They seek denial of the Director Review.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Emerging Automotive LLC has filed a Director Review request challenging the Board’s decision that its e‑key patent claims are anticipated by the Kleve reference. The patent owner argues the Board relied on undisclosed "rental start period" functionality, constituting an abuse of discretion and erroneous factual findings.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly filed a motion to have their settlement agreement treated as business confidential information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request cites statutory and regulatory authority and argues the agreement contains confidential dispute‑resolution terms.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The USPTO denied Kia and Toyota's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00981 concerning Emerging Automotive's vehicle‑control patent (US 9,365,188).
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑00972 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,640,733. The Board was asked to end the proceeding per 35 U.S.C. §317.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG and Everlight Electronics settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 9,640,733 B2. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google, Samsung, Microsoft and EyesMatch have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2024-00856 and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR after reaching a settlement with EyesMatch. The Board granted the motion and sealed the settlement agreement, ending Samsung's participation in the proceeding.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google and Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s digital‑mirror patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and EyesMatch’s response argues that the cited references fail to meet the narrow claim construction obtained in district court, rendering all grounds unpatentable.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Court decision.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
Kia Corporation et al. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,365,188 held by Emerging Automotive LLC. The challenge centers on obviousness (Section 103), arguing that keyless entry systems for vehicle rentals are already disclosed or rendered obvious by combining existing prior art references. This action targets all 20 claims of the patent.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC and other petitioners challenge U.S. Patent No. 8,982,109 by asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on numerous grounds combining digital mirror systems with various prior art references related to image correction, efficiency, and distance calculation. This challenge targets core claims across the augmented reality/digital mirror technology space.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB instituted an IPR challenging claims 1-20 of patent 9365188, which relates to electronic key systems for vehicles. The Board found that the Petitioner provided adequate evidence regarding obviousness grounds based on prior art references like Kleve and Sekiyama.
IKEA Supply AG et al. v.Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
IKEA Supply AG successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.'s patent 9640733. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds, including anticipation and obviousness based on prior art references like Kishikawa and Nakashima. This sets the stage for a full trial focusing on LED packaging technology.
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
Salvacion USA successfully achieved institution in the IPR against Trutek Corp.'s nasal application formulations, facing challenges of anticipation and obviousness over prior art including Chen. The Board found Petitioner's arguments persuasive on the record after detailed claim construction, setting the stage for a full trial.
Kia Corporation et al. v.Emerging Automotive LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 20 claims of the '188 patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that independent claim 1 and dependent claims were rendered obvious by combining Kleve with Sekiyama, while other claims were found obvious in view of various combinations including Kleve/Mottla and Zaid/Harris.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Salvacion USA, Inc. et al. v.Trutek Corp.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the challenged claims (1-3 and 8) were anticipated by multiple prior art references, including Chen. The Board found that the prior art disclosed all claim elements, leading to a final decision of unpatentability.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Saregama India Limited v.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited
Saregama India Limited filed a declaratory suit under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, seeking protection against threats made by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited regarding copyright infringement. The core dispute involved Saregama claiming ownership over numerous sound recordings and literary works. However, when Zee subsequently initiated its own suit for copyright infringement against Saregama, the Delhi High Court held that this action brought the matter within the scope of the proviso to Section 60. Consequently, the initial declaratory suit filed by Saregama was rendered infructuous.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
Phillip Morris Products S.A. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Products S.A. filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated January 24, 2024, which rejected their patent application (No. 201617026827) under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court granted an exemption request while directing parties to file written submissions.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application (no. 202117021605). The High Court granted exemption in a related interlocutory application and directed parties to file written submissions.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Manash Lifestyle Private Limited against Paghadar Riddhi Savanbhai & Ors. The court formally registered the plaint as a commercial suit and set out procedural timelines for both parties to file their respective pleadings, including affidavits of admission/denial of documents. Additionally, several interlocutory applications seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service were granted by the court.
Ambuja Cements Limited v.Sudheer Sharma And Ors
Ambuja Cements Limited filed a suit alleging that several defendants were fraudulently using its 'AMBUJA CEMENT' trademarks and associated domains to run phishing websites, deceiving consumers into making payments. The Delhi High Court granted interim relief, directing the maintenance of status quo on relevant domain names and ordering telecom/internet service providers (MEITY and DoT) to suspend access to these fraudulent sites. Furthermore, the court mandated that various defendants provide KYC documents and details of registered phone numbers to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
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.