Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1501–1600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over bunion‑correction patents. The settlement resolves claims of infringement, trademark, and copyright disputes.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace Medical Concepts' 12,268,428 bunion‑correction patent, alleging that all 30 claims are anticipated or obvious over well‑known surgical textbooks and prior‑art patents. The petition lists ten grounds covering §§102 and 103 and requests the Board to institute review and cancel the claims.
Pfizer Inc. v.Pogona, LLC
Pfizer has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757 covering pneumococcal conjugate vaccines, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Alexander and Gu, plus extensive epidemiology literature.
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr v.M/S Steel India & Ors
The Plaintiffs, holding patents related to a corrugated construction element and its manufacturing method, filed a suit against the Defendants for infringement. The court found merit in the Plaintiffs' submission and passed orders restraining the Defendants from dealing with infringing materials.
Novartis A.G. v.YY
The Plaintiffs, Novartis A.G. and its affiliate, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280. The court granted several interlocutory orders, including an interim injunction and exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
Myokardia Inc. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical
Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et. al. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
UPL Limited And Anr v.Royal Agro Tech And Ors
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement related to agricultural chemicals, specifically concerning an Indian Patent and Trade Mark. The court granted several applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while directing the execution of Local Commissions to inspect infringing products.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of their patent (IN 339964) by Defendant's products. The court, while considering an application for interim injunction, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity and timing of the technical expert affidavit provided by the Plaintiffs.
Astellas Institute For Regenerative Medicine v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application for 'Improved methods of producing RPE cells and compositions of RPE cells'. The core dispute centered on whether the invention, which uses human pluripotent cells to produce RPE cells, violated Section 3(b) of the Patents Act due to ethical concerns about embryo destruction. The court upheld the rejection order.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. v.Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. appealed against an order that dismissed its application for interim injunction, alleging that the respondents were infringing on its trademarks and engaging in passing off. The appellant claimed to be a long-standing user of the 'DINDAYAL' mark since 1927, possessing substantial goodwill and numerous registered trademarks. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, concluding that refusing interim relief would cause irreparable injury to its reputation.
Somany Ceramics Limited v.Hsil Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by Somany Ceramics Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific registered device mark, 'A Somany Enterprise,' belonging to Hsil Limited. The core ground for the relief was non-use, as the applicant successfully argued that the respondent had never commercially used the impugned mark in relation to the goods specified under Class 16. Given the respondents' concession regarding the lack of commercial use, the court directed the removal of the mark from the Trade Marks Register.
Novartis Ag v.Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao seeking protection against the misappropriation of his personality and publicity rights. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and statutory notices for certain defendants. Furthermore, the court issued summons to specific online retailers found to be unauthorizedly selling merchandise bearing the plaintiff's likeness, allowing the suit to proceed toward an injunction against infringement.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.Krishna Alias Tinku & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Government Emarketplace v.Ankit Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction in favor of Government Emarketplace (GeM), a non-profit public procurement platform. The court directed domain registrar Godaddy.com to suspend specific infringing domain names and required social media intermediary Amazon to remove links hosting unauthorized webpages. This decisive order protects the GeM trademark against online infringement, setting a strong precedent for digital rights enforcement in India.
M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation v.Goramal Hari Ram Limited
The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul v.Sunder Lal Goyal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited (Sr) v.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification, expunging a trademark registration held by Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. The petitioner, Bennett Coleman And Company Limited, successfully argued that the registered mark had never been genuinely used since its inception in 2007. Relying on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court found that the continued presence of the unused mark constituted a wrongful and erroneous entry, thereby favoring the petitioner's claim to prior rights.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:12:26 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:41 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:39:21 +01'00'
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communi
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:11:06 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:08 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:37:23 +01'00'
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This case concerns an application by Roborock (HK) Limited for review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1, owned by Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found that Ecovacs's presentation of facts for the ex-parte order was incomplete and potentially misleading, thereby violating Rule 192.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that such a breach renders the order unlawful in its entirety, as ex-parte orders depend entirely on the applicant's truthful and complete submissions.
DOCKET NAVIGATOR (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace's bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior‑art guides and textbooks.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited
The plaintiffs filed a quia timet action alleging infringement of their patent (IN'841) covering the drug 'Ruxolitinib', marketed as JAKAVI®. The defendants denied commercialization and requested protection under Section 107A. Both parties agreed to settle, with the defendant undertaking not to commercially exploit the compound during the patent's validity.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action alleging that Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited was about to infringe its Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound Ruxolitinib (marketed as JAKAVI®). The parties reached an agreement where the defendant committed not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, while retaining rights for research purposes.
Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited
This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.
Xx And Ors v.Yy
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Exemed Pharmaceuticals) from infringing the Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an interim injunction and passed various procedural orders related to the case.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.
Indian Express And Commercial Ventures and ... v.Fundamental Hospitality Private Limited and ...
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking to restrain the Defendants from using the mark 'HOM'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Key factors included the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating substantial goodwill associated with the acronym 'HOM', the distinct calligraphy used by the Defendant, and the fact that both restaurants cater to discerning customers in premium segments, making confusion unlikely.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.
Polidoros S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.
Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a revocation action and counterclaim for infringement related to European Patent EP3812870 between IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH (Claimant) and Belparts Group N.V. (Defendant). The central issue addressed is IMI's request for Belparts to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP, based on alleged economic vulnerability. Belparts opposes the request, arguing that defendants are not required to provide security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and that its financial situation, supported by its patent portfolio and positive annual accounts, demonstrates it is not economically vulnerable.
Nyxoah, Inc. et al. v.Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.
Nyxoah has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inspire Medical Systems' patent on hypoglossal nerve stimulation for sleep apnea. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art neurostimulator references (Durand/Hoegh and Headley/Tran). The Board is asked to institute review and cancel the claims.
Dr.Vishwanath Padmanabhan v.The Joint Controller of Patents & Designs, Head of Office, Patent Office Chennai
Dr. Vishwanath Padmanabhan challenged the Patent Office's decision to deem his invention application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to a technical uploading error in the e-filing portal. The court found that since the petitioner intended to proceed and had paid all requisite fees, the rejection was unjust.
Kirti Dal Mills Limited v.Rajesh Lunkad
Kirti Dal Mills Limited challenged an order that stayed its Commercial Suit No. 1 of 2024, citing the pendency of a previous suit. The core dispute involved claims of passing off and copyright infringement related to edible oils under the brand 'CHAMPION'. The High Court found that the trial court misinterpreted the provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Commercial Courts Act while applying Section 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned stay order was quashed, allowing the commercial suit to proceed.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India
The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Delhi High Court passed several orders in CS(COMM) 1356/2025. The court granted exemption from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of interim relief, allowed applications for discovery and additional documents, and addressed an ad-interim injunction request.
M/S BRAHMAPUTRA DISTILLERY AND ANR v.ASSOCIATED ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGES COMPANY
This appeal was filed by M/S Brahmaputra Distillery against an ad-interim injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Jorhat. The underlying commercial suit involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off concerning the product 'Raagi' and its packaging. However, the Gauhati High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal on preliminary grounds, ruling that due to the specific mandate of Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appeal ought to have been filed before the District Judge, Jorhat.
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents
Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.
Baldev Raj v.Brothers Tobacco & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted Baldev Raj limited permission to introduce registered trademark certificates into the ongoing passing off suit against Brothers Tobacco. This relief was contingent upon a strict clarification: the Petitioner could not use these documents to convert the cause of action from passing off to infringement. The court emphasized that since the Petitioner possessed these registration details prior to framing issues, they must adhere strictly to the original claim of passing off.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Ambush Cement Private Limited
Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited appealed the rejection of its trademark application for 'PROMAX' under Class 31, arguing that it was a prior user and should be accepted despite objections based on similarity to existing marks. The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant’s mark was deceptively similar to cited marks already registered in the same class. The court emphasized that registering the single word 'PROMAX' would create an undue monopoly over a common formative mark.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning a file inspection request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. TP-Link sought access to certain filings and annexes submitted by Huawei and Netgear in infringement proceedings before the Local Division Munich involving EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent. Netgear and Huawei opposed the request, seeking its full rejection or, alternatively, limiting access to fully redacted versions of the documents.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
1 UPC_CFI_1262/2025 UPC_CFI_ 830/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 17/12/2025 concerning: access to file (R. 262.1(b)) Date of receipt of Application : 22/10/2025 APPLICANT/S 1) (Applicant) -
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC entered into a settlement that grants Ebury a royalty‑free license to several patents covering cross‑border payments, includes covenants not to sue, and mandates dismissal of the pending IPR and related lawsuit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that ordered review of an expired content‑delivery patent owned by Sandpiper CDN. The petition argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the district‑court record, making the decision an outlier.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. moved to withdraw its IPR petition after settling with Intercurrency Software LLC. The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, which was unopposed and at an early stage.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN, keeping the institutions intact.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 9,762,692 patent covering CDN popularity‑based routing and content partitioning, asserting obviousness over Seed and Swildens references.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
R P Scherer Technologies Llc v.The Patent Office of India
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202127050600) by the Assistant Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core issue was whether the claimed formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins/peptides was non-obvious over cited prior art. Given the technical nature, the Court appointed a Scientific Advisor to render an opinion.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves for aspiration catheters after finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care challenged Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and instituted inter partes review on all 18 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 catheter aspiration patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The review covers all 15 claims and four obviousness grounds involving Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent after finding Imperative Care likely to succeed on at least one claim, focusing on obviousness over Garrison, Laub, and Aklog references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical's 11,969,333 B2 patent covering intravascular clot removal. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Laub, Garrison, and related references, and instituted review on all 36 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd. v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Max India Investment Services Private Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd challenging an ongoing complaint lodged against it by a third party regarding trademark ownership. The petitioner sought interim relief to prevent adverse orders from the Regional Director, Northern Division. While dismissing the apprehension of arbitrary action, the court issued a crucial direction, mandating that the Regional Director must dispose of the Section 16(1)(b) complaint after thoroughly considering all submissions and granting a proper hearing to all concerned parties.
Prabin Kumar Shah v.Manoj Kumar Jagnani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court heard an application for rectification filed by Prabin Kumar Shah seeking cancellation of Trademark No. 1553036 in Class 30. The court noted that the respondent's mark appeared to be slavishly imitating the petitioner's mark. Given the respondent's proposal to change the impugned mark (in color and font), the Court granted them an opportunity to revise it, while also directing them to adhere to a prior binding decree from the District Court at Bokaro.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master
Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 1250/KOL/2009) based on alleged lack of inventive steps. The appeal argued that the Controller reintroduced this objection suo moto, violating natural justice principles and contradicting earlier notices where the objection had been waived.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an infringement action on December 16, 2024 against two defendants concerning European Patent EP 4 240 194, alleging that products Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX (and their Plus, Pro, and Pro Max variants) infringed the patent. While service was successfully completed against the Hong Kong defendant on May 29, 2025, service against the Shenzhen defendant failed twice because the Chinese central authority rejected the documents due to the naming convention used for Hong Kong. The Milan Local Division addressed whether Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention applies in the UPC system, concluding that it is entirely applicable regardless of any additional requirements for service within each Member State.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS a.o.
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (1250/KOL/2009) primarily on grounds of lacking inventive steps. The appellant argued that the reintroduction of this objection after amendments and previous hearings violated natural justice principles. The High Court found that the procedure was against the scheme of the Act, setting aside the rejection order.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk A/S appealed an order where a Single Judge found infringement and granted limited relief to Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited. The appeal centers on whether the suit patent (IN 2626971) is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64 of the Patents Act, given that the learned judge found the claim obvious from prior art.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Docbel Industries & Anr. v.Braun Aktiengesellschaft
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Ultratech Cement against Dalmia Cement Bharat. The court formally framed seven key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DALMIA ULTRA' infringes upon Ultratech's registered trademarks and whether there is an act of passing off. This judgment sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation, directing the plaintiff to file affidavits within four weeks.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully invalidated SitNet’s ’932 patent claims covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The Board found all challenged claims (12‑21) obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art references Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petitioner’s arguments unopposed.
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v.Kurin, Inc.
Magnolia Medical Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Kurin’s blood‑sample optimization device, asserting that the Bullington800 publication (alone and combined with Brancazio and Liu) anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.