IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 96 of 159 · 4,764 total
Red Bull Ag v.Rahul Ranjan Partner Of M/S Wings Energy & Ors.
The Delhi High Court finalized a trademark infringement suit between Red Bull Ag and Rahul Ranjan Partner of M/S Wings Energy after the parties reached a comprehensive settlement. The court decreed the suit in favor of Red Bull, granting permanent injunctions against Defendants No. 1 & 2 to prevent them from using confusingly similar marks like 'WINGS' or 'ENERGY'. This resolution allows both parties to conclude the litigation amicably.
Asian Paints Limited v.Ajeet Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court allowed Asian Paints Limited's application to implead numerous additional parties—including domain name registrars, banks, and telecom service providers—in its trademark infringement suit. The court found a prima facie case for the plaintiff, noting that fraudsters were using various digital channels (websites, phone numbers, bank accounts) to perpetuate the misuse of the 'ASIAN PAINTS' mark. Consequently, the existing injunction was expanded, and specific directions were issued compelling these third-party defendants to block infringing websites, freeze associated bank accounts, and suspend mobile numbers.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in main infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 669. Alongside its appeal, Audi requested expedition of the appeal proceedings and shortening of deadlines pursuant to R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
This order of the Court of Appeal concerned Texas Instruments' request for expedition of an appeal against the Court of First Instance's denial of their application for security for legal costs under Art. 69.4 UPCA in underlying infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669. Texas Instruments argued that expedition was needed because they continued to incur legal costs defending the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation without adequate security from the claimant, NST. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it insufficiently substantiated and noting that Texas Instruments had not demonstrated a particular interest in shortening the 15-day period for NST to lodge its Statement of response.
AUDI AG v.Respondent
Audi AG filed an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance Local Division Munich that denied Audi's application requesting Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide adequate security for legal costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Concurrently with its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal, Audi requested the Court of Appeal to expedite the appeal proceedings and shorten deadlines. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding that Audi had not explained any particular interest in shortening the respondent's 15-day period for filing a Statement of response, and that the request regarding further proceedings was too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs in underlying infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 875 683. Alongside its Statement of appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal and shortening of deadlines under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Volkswagen AG v.Respondent
Volkswagen AG appealed an order of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) that denied its application for security for costs against Network System Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Volkswagen requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.225(e) and R.9.3(b) RoP, citing increasing legal costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition as too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises filed a joint motion in a PGR to terminate the proceeding and keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement and jointly moved to terminate their post‑grant review of U.S. Patent No. 11,732,496. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under statutory authority.
Camel Manufacturing Company, LLC, d/b/a Camel Expeditionary v.DLX Enterprises LLC
Camel Manufacturing and DLX Enterprises entered a settlement that resolved all pending PTAB post‑grant review matters for patent 11,732,496. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement documents as confidential business information.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility and co‑petitioners seek Director review of a PTAB decision denying institution of an IPR on their UWB train‑control patent. They argue the Board wrongly treated a cited patent number as previously presented art and erred in finding the prior art was substantially the same as that considered during prosecution.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories filed a Petition challenging Newtonoid Technologies' patent claims based on obviousness. The petitioner argues that combining known technologies, such as dynamic barcodes and environmental monitoring, renders the claims unpatentable over multiple prior art references. This challenge targets 18 specific claims related to stimuli-responsive labels.
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
Siemens Mobility's IPR challenge against Metrom Rail's rail vehicle control patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that the arguments presented were substantially similar to those previously raised during prosecution, leading to a discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
Siemens Mobility, Inc. et al. v.Metrom Rail, LLC
The PTAB denied a request to reverse the denial of institution for IPR2024-00947, finding that Kane was not 'previously presented art' and that it was substantially similar to Knott.
Abbott Laboratories v.Newtonoid Technologies, LLC
Abbott Laboratories challenged Newtonoid Technologies' '818 patent, asserting obviousness over prior art references like Prusik and Vaillant. The PTAB issued an institution decision finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 20 challenged claims.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
Mr Lakshit Goyal Proprietor Of Rama Domestic Appliances v.Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances
The Delhi High Court initiated trademark infringement proceedings between Mr Lakshit Goyal's Rama Domestic Appliances and Sunita Gupta Trading As Mva Gas And Home Appliances. The court allowed the plaintiff's application seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant for using deceptively similar marks ('HPC APPLIANCES'). While several procedural applications were disposed of, the core suit was registered, and notice was issued to the defendant, setting the stage for detailed arguments on trademark similarity and infringement.
Arm Germany GmbH, ARM Limited, Allinea Software GmbH, Simulity Labs Limited, Arm lreland Limited, Arm Sweden AB, SVF Holdco, Arm France SAS, Arm Germany d.o.o, Apical Limited v.Respondent
The provided document contains only metadata indicating approval signatures and timestamps dated 20–21 May 2024, with the phrase 'Hyväksyn dokumentin' (Finnish for 'I approve the document'). No substantive judgment text, facts, legal arguments, or operative decision is available in the source material.
SharkNinja Germany GmbH, SharkNinja Europe Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dyson Technology Ltd., the registered proprietor of European Patent 2 043 492, sought provisional measures against SharkNinja Europe Limited and SharkNinja Germany GmbH before the Local Chamber Munich. The application concerned alleged infringement of the patent-in-suit by the respondents' products in multiple countries. The court addressed issues of undue delay in seeking interim relief, patent claim interpretation, the summary nature of validity examination in interim proceedings, and the ordering of provisional cost reimbursement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 B2. The parties jointly moved to terminate the PGR, and the Board granted the motion, sealing the settlement agreement.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec Ltd. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 covering fiber‑optic connectors. They jointly filed a motion to withdraw the PTAB post‑grant review, seeking full termination of the proceeding.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components and US Conec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,733,466 and jointly filed a motion to keep the settlement confidential and withdraw the PGR petition, effectively ending the proceeding.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron settled all disputes over four patents, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes reviews without a final written decision.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson and Omachron have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,080,472 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the IPR.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB held that 17 of the 25 challenged claims of DISH’s ’680 adaptive‑bitrate streaming patent were obvious over Ogdon and Allen, while 8 claims remained patentable.
MediaTek Inc. et al. v.ParkerVision, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 1, 6‑9, 12, and 17‑20 of ParkerVision’s ’108 patent are unpatentable. Petitioner proved obviousness over Downey, Sedra, and Hahnel, and the Board rejected the Patent Owner’s claim‑term construction for “switch.”
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. v.US Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 17 claims of US Conec’s fiber‑optic connector patent, alleging indefiniteness, lack of written description, and anticipation/obviousness over numerous prior‑art references.
Good Sportsman Marketing, LLC v.--
Good Sportsman Marketing petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑19 of the ’855 patent, arguing obviousness over Unger and Smith, indefiniteness of several claims, and lack of enablement and written description for claim 10.
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.