IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 99 of 159 · 4,764 total
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation challenged Monolithic Power Systems' '608 Patent, asserting that claims related to bootstrap refresh control circuits for DC-DC voltage converters are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The petitioner relies heavily on prior art references, including TI data sheets and patents by Galinski, Li, and Wong, to demonstrate anticipation and obviousness.
Dyson Technology Limited et al. v.Omachron Intellectual Property Inc. et al.
Dyson successfully had its patent (No. 11,389,038 B2) instituted in an IPR against Omachron Intellectual Property Inc., overcoming initial challenges regarding obviousness. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success for Dyson across all asserted claims (1-15), moving the dispute toward trial.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
fuboTV Media Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s adaptive bitrate streaming patent (10757156). The Board found that the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on obviousness grounds over prior art references Leaning and Ala-Honkola. This sets up a high-stakes challenge to core technology in digital media streaming.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. lost its request for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of IPR against Yangtze Memory Technologies Company regarding NAND Flash memory patents.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology failed to invalidate Yangtze Memory Technologies' patent on obviousness grounds in a PTAB IPR decision. The Board found that the petitioner could not demonstrate that combining prior art teachings would render the claimed 3D Flash memory invention obvious.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's request for rehearing of the institution denial in its IPR against Yangtze Memory was denied by the PTAB. The Board upheld its construction of key terms, finding no abuse of discretion.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al. v.Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
Reed Semiconductor Corporation v.Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for Reed Semiconductor Corporation's IPR against Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., finding Petitioner failed to adequately map claims onto prior art references. The denial was based on insufficient explanation regarding specific functional limitations in the voltage converter technology.
fuboTV Media Inc. et al. v.DISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB found all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations, primarily Leaning. The Board determined that Leaning discloses key adaptive bitrate streaming features, including methods for segmenting video and implementing rate switching based on network performance factors.
Saint Gobain Placo v.Khushbu Frames
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against the defendants for allegedly infringing on their registered patents related to corrugated construction elements. The defendants claim they have never used the technology in question.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited v.The Advertising Standards Council of India
Reckitt Benckiser challenged an order passed by the learned Judge which rejected its application for an interim injunction against The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). Reckitt, a manufacturer of consumer health products like MORTEIN mosquito repellent, sought to prevent ASCI from adjudicating complaints against its new product advertisements. The Madras High Court ultimately found that the suit did possess cause of action and jurisdiction in Tamil Nadu, setting aside the initial order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
STAÛBLI TEC-SYSTEMS GMBH v.***
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 concerning a method for controlling the speed and positioning of a tool change carriage. In response to prior art documents submitted with the nullity action, the patent proprietors disclaimed the patent, rendering the main case moot under Rule 360. The court addressed the cost allocation, holding that it would generally be inequitable to impose costs on the patent proprietor who immediately disclaims the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity complaint.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation
This order concerns the defendants' application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3096315. The defendants, OROPE Germany GmbH and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., sought production of various license agreements (including those designated 'X' and 'Y') that the plaintiff Panasonic Holdings Corporation relied upon as reference points in FRAND negotiations, as well as other 3G/4G SEP license agreements. The order was issued by the presiding and reporting judge Dr. Tochtermann of the Local Chamber Mannheim, addressing the procedural status of the production requests following the plaintiff's unredacted submissions on the FRAND aspect.
Sandvik Intellectual Property Ab v.Mr. Kalyan Singh & Ors.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing their patents, specifically concerning distributor plates and turbo tips compatible with SANDVIK VSI crushers. After initial ex parte orders, the matter was disposed of at a summary stage upon concession by the defendant regarding the injunction.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. v.Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd
Communication Components Antenna Inc. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Mobi Antenna Technologies (Shenzhen) Co Ltd for infringing Indian Patent No. 240893, which covers 'Asymmetrical Beams for Spectrum Efficiency'. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant's Bi-Sector Array Antennas infringed both method and product claims of the patent. Despite the Defendant raising challenges regarding the patent's validity under Sections 64(e), 64(f), and 3(d) of the Patents Act, the Court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff.
Jamboree Resorts India Llp & Anr. v.Mehul Sharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Jamboree Resorts India LLP, who holds registered trademarks for 'JAMBOREE'. The court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against the defendants, who were operating the resort under the name 'SIGNUM JAMBOREE CREEK RESORT' following a terminated revenue-sharing agreement. The order restrained the use of the infringing mark and mandated the handover of all associated digital assets to allow the plaintiffs to regain control.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
Bonn Nutrients Pvt. Ltd & Anr. v.Pahal Foods Pvt. Limited & Ors.
In a dispute over the packaging and trade dress of coconut cookies, Bonn Nutrients sought an injunction against Pahal Foods for alleged infringement. The Delhi High Court issued an order facilitating an amicable settlement between the parties. Defendants agreed not to manufacture any more products under the disputed label/packaging but were granted time to exhaust their existing stock of 15,000 cases. Both parties were also directed toward mediation and listed for further consideration.
Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd v.Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Jr Rice India Pvt. Ltd against Kishan Khetrapal Proprietor Of Aaradhya Agrotech. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while formally registering the plaint as a commercial suit. Crucially, regarding the injunction application seeking to restrain the defendant from using the deceptively similar mark 'ABBA HUZUR' on rice products, the Court issued notice to the defendant.
M/S. Lotus Organic Care v.M/S. Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd.
The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition filed by M/S. Lotus Organic Care, setting aside a lower court's rejection of its application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act. The core issue was whether the petitioner had made sufficient prima facie pleadings in their written statement to warrant staying the infringement suit while they pursued trademark rectification. The High Court held that the trial court only needs to record prima facie satisfaction based on the pleadings, not evaluate the evidence for the eventual rectification application. Consequently, the infringement proceedings were stayed, allowing the petitioner to proceed with challenging the validity of the respondent's trademarks.
Belkin Limited , Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc v.Respondent
This is a purely administrative procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich concerning the scheduling of hearings. The Reporter scheduled an interim hearing for September 11, 2024, and postponed the previously scheduled oral hearing from July 11, 2024 to October 23, 2024. No substantive legal arguments or claims were addressed in the order.
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns European Patent EP 3 110 072 owned by Headwater Research LLC, which sued five Motorola/Lenovo-related entities for patent infringement. Defendants 3 and 4 (Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH and Digital River Ireland Ltd.) applied to extend their opposition deadline from May 13, 2024 to May 17, 2024 to align with the deadline applicable to Defendants 1 and 2. The defendants argued that aligning the different opposition deadlines would simplify the proper preparation and coordination of their briefs for reasons of procedural economy.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V., Plant-e B.V. v.Arkyne Technologies S.L.
This order concerns an application by Arkyne Technologies S.L. (trading as 'Bioo'), the Defendant in the main infringement proceedings, for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The application relates to Exhibits GP36 and GP39 and specific paragraphs of Bioo's rejoinder in an infringement action brought by Plant-e B.V. and Plant-e Knowledge B.V. concerning European Patent EP2137782. Bioo sought a confidentiality regime restricting use of the redacted information to the main infringement proceedings and limiting access to one natural person at Plant-e with a legitimate interest, along with penalty payments for any breach.
Leonhard Kurz Stiftung And Co. Kg v.Controller Of Patents
The appeal challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of the Appellant's patent application, which held that subsequent amendments were outside the scope of the original filing. The High Court found that the amended claims referenced the complete specifications as originally filed. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Patents Office.
Parijat Industries India Private Limited v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Parijat Industries appealed against an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs which had revoked its Indian Patent No. 372550 based on grounds under Section 25(2)(b), (e), (f) and (g). The High Court found that the reasoning provided in the Impugned Order was inadequate and did not meet judicial standards.
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents
Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd appealed a patent application rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The appellant argued that the rejection, based on Sections 2(1)(ja) and 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, failed to consider submitted data and did not provide adequate opportunity to respond to the Section 3(d) objection.
Cassiopea S.P.A. v.Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
Cassiopea S.P.A. appealed the order passed by the Assistant Controller of Patent, which rejected its Indian Patent Application (No. 201717042863) and accepted a pre-grant opposition filed by other respondents. The Delhi High Court allowed applications for condoning delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
Castrol Limited v.Mohan Bajya
In a significant move against alleged counterfeiters, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Castrol Limited. The court recognized the substantial goodwill associated with Castrol's trademarks and trade dress for engine oils. To enforce this urgent relief, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to seize infringing goods manufactured by the defendant, Mohan Bajya, and inspect relevant financial records.
Eastman Auto And Power Limited v.Shreejee Power Systems Llp
In a Delhi High Court case concerning trademark infringement and passing off, Eastman Auto And Power Limited successfully reached a settlement with Shreejee Power Systems Llp. The Defendant agreed to permanently cease using the disputed mark 'EASTON' in association with batteries and solar inverters, acknowledge the Plaintiff's rights in 'EASTMAN', and undertake specific actions including filing for cancellation of one registered mark and rectification of another. The suit was subsequently disposed of on these consent terms.
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.