Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1701–1800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a suit alleging infringement of its patent (IN'697) covering Semaglutide, a GLP-1 analogue used for diabetes and obesity. The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from importing or dealing in the compound. The Court ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of relief.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/s. Salus Pharmaceutical & anr.
M/s. Shilpa Medicare Limited filed a commercial appeal against an order, seeking condonation of delay due to initial incorrect nomenclature. The court allowed the delay condonation, noting that procedural rules are handmaids of justice. Subsequently, the court set aside a single judge's order and remanded the matter for consideration on merits, emphasizing continuous infringement.
XX v.Y
The Delhi High Court allowed the commercial suit filed by XX against Y, which alleges infringement of trademarks and designs related to 'HERO Genuine engine oil.' The court granted several procedural reliefs, including masking party identities and exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought. Crucially, the court permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises, seize infringing stock, and ascertain its value, paving the way for immediate interim protection.
Ganraj Enterprises v.Land Mark Crafts Pvt. Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order allowing the Respondent No. 1 to file several additional documents in the ongoing trademark litigation. The application sought modification of a prior order, primarily to bring on record evidence concerning the change of ownership of trademarks and detailed arguments regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the parties' marks. This procedural step allows the court to consider complex issues related to assignment dates and examination objections.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Innovative Sonic Corporation's appeal against an order of the President of the Local Division Munich that changed the language of proceedings from German to English. The court held that when deciding on a request to change the language of proceedings on grounds of fairness, all relevant circumstances must be considered, primarily those related to the specific case and the position of the parties, particularly the defendant.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated on 22 April 2025 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. Following an interim conference held on 28 November 2025, the Judge-rapporteur issued an order on 1 December 2025 setting out procedural directions, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the case, and the date for the oral hearing.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Hfcl Limited
The Delhi High Court passed an order listing the issues in a suit for infringement and a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patent. The court framed multiple issues concerning whether the defendant infringed the patent and whether the patent is liable to be revoked under various provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.
Kaha Pte. Ltd. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Kaha Pte. Ltd. filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of a patent for application no. 02017037882. The court also addressed an interlocutory application seeking exemption from document submission requirements.
Vivek Verma & Ors. v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registration of the trademark 'PALANG TORE MARD CHOURI PATTI' in favor of Vivek Verma & Ors. The court found that the Impugned Mark is identical or deceptively similar to the Appellant's existing marks, particularly considering the nature of the goods (chewing tobacco/gutkha) and the consumer base (illiterate sections). This decision highlights the high risk of market confusion when identical marks are used for related products.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr. v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an interim injunction granted by the Commercial Court, which had prohibited Ms. Anuradha Sharma's use of her registered trademark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found that a prima facie case existed for the appellant to challenge the order, particularly regarding the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating goodwill and likelihood of confusion in the passing off action. Furthermore, the High Court issued a directive to Commercial Courts, mandating clear findings on whether an injunction is based on infringement or passing off, and requiring positive proof of goodwill in passing off cases.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a 'Vehicle Frame Assembly' due to lack of inventive step and other objections. The appellant argued that their design, which mounts a utility box on gusset plates instead of cross members, provides surprising technical effects like enhanced strength and optimized space utilization. The High Court set aside the rejection order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants after Defendant 1 failed to lodge an objection within the prescribed time period, while Defendant 2's objection was considered on the merits. The court ordered both defendants to cease infringement, with additional information and penalty payment orders against Defendant 1.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against fifteen Moderna entities regarding European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The Defendants filed a statement of defence and a counterclaim for revocation covering both patents. The Court exercised its discretionary power under Rule 302.1 of the Rules of Procedure to order the Defendants to split the counterclaim for revocation into two separate actions, one for each patent, due to the different stages of pending EPO opposition proceedings and the capped court fee structure for revocation counterclaims.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Barco N.V.
This Order of the Court of Appeal addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an application for provisional measures under Rule 206 RoP. The Court of Appeal clarified several procedural and substantive issues, including the applicability of Rule 19.5 RoP to provisional measures proceedings, the referral mechanism between divisions based on competence challenges, the interpretation of competence rules under Article 33 UPCA, and the principles governing interim awards of costs. The Court held that there is no hierarchy between the competence grounds in Article 33(1)(a) and 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that competence should be assessed through a cursory review of the parties' allegations and evidence rather than a comprehensive evaluation.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co. a.o.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd., the registered proprietor of European patent EP 2 787 541 (relating to solar cells), sued Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its Astronergy affiliates for allegedly infringing the patent through their 'ASTRO N' series n-type TOPCon solar modules sold in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation and raised defenses including lack of standing, incomplete infringement allegations, validity challenges, and antitrust violations. The Local Division Munich found infringement, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation in its entirety, and granted injunctive relief, information orders, recall and destruction orders, damages, and an interim award of costs against the defendants.
YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV
This is an Order of the Court of Appeal concerning an Application for provisional measures under Rule 206 RoP. The Court addressed issues of competence of local divisions, urgency, and interim award of costs in provisional measures proceedings. The Order establishes that Rule 19.5 RoP applies mutatis mutandis to provisional measures proceedings, that there is no hierarchy between the competence grounds in Art. 33(1)(a) and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA, and that competence assessment should be cursory rather than comprehensive. The Court also held that an interim award of costs up to half of the applicable ceiling is generally appropriate in provisional measures proceedings.
Pachranga International Inc. v.Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries
Pachranga International Inc. filed an application alleging that Vishisht Malik Trading As M/S Pachranga Food Industries willfully disobeyed a prior court order dated 11.03.2025, which restrained the defendant from dealing in products bearing deceptive labels and infringing on the plaintiff's registered design, copyright, and trademarks. The plaintiff alleged continued violation through manufacturing and online sales using similar branding. In response, the defendant undertook to modify the trade dress of its label by changing the color and font, while also confirming the removal of specified URLs.
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office
TVS Motor Company Limited appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting its application for "Vehicle Frame Assembly" on grounds including lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(f), and formal requirements. The appellant argued that the rejection failed to follow a proper five-step analysis when assessing obviousness against cited prior art. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman
The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
Mir Mahamood Ali & Ors. v.Mir Mukkaram Ali
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the expungement of the respondent’s name from the Copyright Register. The dispute centered on a conflict where the respondent was incorrectly listed as the owner of the artistic features of the 'Sagar Homeo Stores' trademark, despite the petitioners being the rightful owners. By establishing their prior and valid registration with the Trademark authority, the court found the opposing copyright entry to be illegal and concocted.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request for a stay of first instance proceedings pending its appeal against orders of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Vivo's preliminary objections. The preliminary objections challenged the UPC's jurisdiction to determine FRAND license terms. The Court held that the unprecedented nature of the jurisdictional question and the costs of preparing a defence did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, and that Vivo's interest in avoiding costs did not outweigh Sun Patent Trust's interest in obtaining a decision without unnecessary delay.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Pari Pharma GmbH filed a revocation action against Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning European Patent No. EP3397329, titled 'Air-flow in a nebulizer head.' The patent, which relates to a nebulizer head and nebulizer system for providing a substance in aerosolized form, is registered with unitary effect and in force in Germany, France, and the UK. The defendant filed an application to amend the patent during the proceedings. The Court of First Instance of the Central Division (Milan) addressed issues including standing to sue under Art. 47(6) UPCA and the interpretation of schematic figures by the skilled person.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 27/11/2025 concernant R.19 et R.334 (g) RdP DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS (Parties à la procédure au principal - Demandeur) - 5 rue de Lissandre - 13013 - MARSEILLE - FR Repré
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Court of Appeal addressed whether to admit the withdrawal of an appeal by the defendant-appellant Strabag following an out-of-court settlement with the plaintiff Swarco, and whether the separate appeal filed by the intervener Chainzone (which supported Strabag) became moot as a result. The Court held that the withdrawal of Strabag's appeal was admissible and that Chainzone's appeal became moot under Rule 360 RoP, because the intervener cannot maintain an independent position contradicting the supported party. The Court further ruled that Chainzone should generally be treated like Strabag regarding costs.
InterDigital VC Holdings et al., v.Amazon.com, Inc. et. al.
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested under Rule 115 RoP access to the audio recording of an oral hearing held on 14 November 2025 before the Local Division Mannheim, and permission to produce a complete transcript with the help of a professional transcriber for use in parallel US and UK proceedings. The court granted access to the audio recording at the premises of the Local Division Düsseldorf upon appointment, but rejected the request to produce a complete transcript, holding that Rule 115 RoP does not permit parties to create full transcripts for distribution outside UPC proceedings.
M/S. Dunlop India Limited (In Liqn.) v.Dunlop Aircraft Tyres Limited
The Calcutta High Court granted leave to M/S. Dunlop India Limited to continue its trademark rectification and cancellation proceedings against a company now in liquidation. The dispute centered on preventing the use of the 'DUNLOP' mark, including various prefixes and suffixes, for aircraft tyres by the liquidating entity. This decision allows the established market leader to pursue legal remedies to protect its brand integrity within the specialized aviation sector.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Greenland Trading Company
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Greenland Trading Company. The court recognized 'HIMALAYA' as a well-known mark due to its extensive global use since 1930. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the health and wellness sector, the court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar marks until further hearing.
Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan v.The Artists Planet & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the ongoing suit filed by Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan against The Artists Planet & Ors. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation, citing the need for urgent interim relief. Furthermore, the court directed the production and inspection of documents by the defendants, while also formally registering the plaint as a civil suit seeking protection against trademark infringement, passing off, copyright violation, and misappropriation of personality rights.
M/S. Sudhakar Pvc Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahendra Pratap Singh
The Madras High Court closed Original Petition (Trade Marks) No. 58 of 2025 after both parties reached a settlement. The petitioner, M/S. Sudhakar PVC Products Pvt. Ltd., sought to remove or rectify the registration of trademark no. 6322916 in Class 17. The first respondent, Mahendra Pratap Singh, agreed to the removal via an undertaking submitted to the court. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to make the necessary corrections within four weeks.
Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. Irani v.The Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This order, issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on November 26, 2025, concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The applicant, Topsoe A/S, had filed an application for correction of an earlier order dated November 25, 2025, which contained address errors regarding the respondents SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The court corrected the addresses of the respondents and the production site of the first respondent in the operative part of the prior order.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. - Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. Yealink filed a Preliminary Objection under R. 19 RoP challenging the territorial competence of the LD Brussels under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. Because the same territorial competence issue was already the subject of a cross-appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal in case UPC_CoA_317/2025, the Court stayed the Preliminary Objection proceedings until the Court of Appeal issues its decision, and set a schedule for post-decision comments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung seeks IPR on Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent (US 11,233,780). Network‑1’s preliminary response argues the Examiner already approved claim 1 and that the petitioner’s combinations do not teach key claim limitations, urging denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent, alleging obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how a POSITA would combine teachings from Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63, Weiss and Nix175 to render the claims unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 22 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC provisioning patent (US 12,207,094), asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references such as Park, GlobalPlatform, AbiChar, X9.63‑Overview, Weiss and Nix175.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Network‑1’s ’893 patent covering eUICC provisioning, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Kluster Llc & Anr. v.Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a suit between Kluster Llc & Anr. and Mr. Deval Ravindrabhai Bambhaniya & Ors., formalizing an amicable settlement reached by the parties. The defendants acknowledged Kluster's proprietary rights over the 'KLUSTER' mark, trade dress, and copyrighted material. In exchange for a decree, the defendants agreed to cease all use of the infringing marks/designs, refrain from copying original works, and pay Rs. 3,00,000/- in litigation costs.
Provogue India Private Limited v.Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Provogue India Private Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Harish Kumar Dhawan & Ors., granting exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court recognized the urgency of the matter, noting the risk that defendants might conceal or suppress their infringing operations. Furthermore, the court directed a local commission inspection to gather evidence regarding the alleged deceptive trade mark use in the manufacturing and sale of leather goods.
Jyoti Sharma (Trading As Akhand Bharat Enterprises) v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Jyoti Sharma's appeal against the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register a device mark. The court found that the original refusal order contained significant factual errors, incorrectly characterizing the application as a word mark for services when it was actually a device mark for goods in Class-9. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, without prejudging the merits of the registration claim.
Easy Trip Planners Limited v.Inditab E Solutions Private Limited
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the suit filed by Easy Trip Planners Limited against Inditab E Solutions Private Limited, which seeks permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off. The court granted the plaintiff exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set timelines for the filing of written statements and replication, scheduling the next hearing for the injunction application.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes on key legal principles relating to claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles regarding the interpretation of dependent claims, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the sufficiency test for functionally defined claims, and the framework for assessing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The decision establishes legal principles on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency of disclosure, and the framework for analyzing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, assessing added matter, evaluating sufficiency including functional features, and the methodology for establishing inventive step.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes establishing legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The full case facts and parties are not contained in the provided text excerpt, which consists primarily of the headnotes section.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The judgment sets out headnotes addressing four key areas of patent law: claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency, and inventive step. The Court of Appeal articulated legal principles governing how dependent claims inform the interpretation of main claims, the inherent requirements of medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter as a question of law, the standard for sufficiency of disclosure including functional features, and the methodology for assessing inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The judgment sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The decision establishes guidance on interpreting dependent claims, medical use-format claims, the assessment of added matter, the test for sufficiency including functional features, and the framework for evaluating inventive step.
Amgen Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation (case numbers UPC_CoA_528/2024 and UPC_CoA_529/2024). The decision sets out headnotes addressing key patent law principles including claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The judgment establishes legal guidelines on how dependent claims inform main claim interpretation, the inherent therapeutic effectiveness requirement in medical use-format claims, the legal nature of added matter assessment, and the standards for sufficiency and inventive step analysis.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Topsoe A/S, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, filed an application on November 21, 2025, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of the two German respondents, SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, in preparation for a forthcoming main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order on November 25, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had been granted on July 5, 2023, without any opposition, and the applicant had withdrawn its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the court on the same day it filed the application.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 25 November 2025 concerning appeals in a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation. The decision sets out headnotes addressing key legal principles on claim interpretation, added matter, sufficiency of disclosure, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that dependent claims only inform main claim interpretation when they provide more specific descriptions of main claim features, that medical use-format claims inherently require therapeutic effectiveness, and that sufficiency must be assessed from the perspective of the skilled person at the filing or priority date.
Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2025-11-25) under reference UPC-000220, Meril Italy Srl (Appellant in 464/2024 and Respondent in 530/2024), Meril GmbH (Appellant in 457/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 532/2024 and 27/2025), Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Appellant in 458/2024 and 21/2025 and Respondent in 533/2024 an appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung and Google have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of Headwater's messaging patent, arguing obviousness over a 3GPP standard and an earlier encryption patent. They also oppose discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all 18 claims of Headwater’s ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of prior‑art references Limont, Wright, Xu and Polson.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑18 of the ’042 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a combination of Limont, Wright, Xu, and Polson references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent unpatentable. Google and its wireless partners successfully argued anticipation and obviousness over the Rao reference and related prior art.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s ’733 patent claims are unpatentable, finding them obvious over a 3GPP MMS standard and an earlier encryption device. All 27 challenged claims were cancelled.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung, Google and Samsung America failed to prove patentability of Headwater's ’733 patent. All challenged claims were found obvious over TS-23.140 and Ogawa, rendering them unpatentable.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Headwater’s ’192 MMS server patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and argues against discretionary denial.
Target Corporation v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Headwater Research LLC filed a notice of partial settlement, confirming a worldwide licensing agreement with Apple and releasing all claims against Apple and related defendants in the district court case against Amazon.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta Therapeutics has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s ’894 patent covering analytical ultracentrifugation methods for AAV vectors. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious in view of long‑standing literature (de la Maza) and the Le Bec patent, combined with Sommer and Cole. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of claims 1‑7 and 10‑30.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Suinno sought suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP to prevent enforcement of a cost decision (R. 151 RoP) issued by the Central Division (Paris Seat) ordering it to pay €350,000.00 in costs to Microsoft following a default judgment dismissing Suinno's infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173. The Court of Appeal held that while the application was admissible, Suinno failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it had not shown the cost decision was manifestly erroneous. The application for suspensive effect was rejected.
Ascendis Pharma A/S et al. v.BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
Ascendis Pharma has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of BioMarin’s U.S. Patent 12,331,106 covering CNP‑variant treatments for achondroplasia. The petition alleges obviousness, anticipation, lack of enablement, and an improper dependent claim. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s multi‑speaker audio patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing Bluetooth speaker technologies. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Rajani Products v.Madhukar Varandani, Proprietor Of M/S Naturalindia Oils And Proteins & Anr.
Rajani Products filed a petition seeking the removal of a specific Copyright registration (A-128046/2019) held by Madhukar Varandani. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing edible oils, claimed that their own artistic works and labels, featuring the SWASTIK device, were prior and original. They argued that the impugned work was a substantial reproduction of their protected designs. After comparing the two artistic works, the court found that the Impugned Artistic Work lacked originality and substantially imitated the Petitioner's registered works.
Trident Limited v.Controller Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Medilabo Rfp Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Medilabo Rfp Inc appealed the refusal of its patent application for a prophylactic drug composition intended for neurodegenerative diseases. The core dispute centered on whether the claims, which described a chemical composition, could be rejected under Section 3(i) (lack of inventive step/patentability criteria) because they were used for treatment. The High Court found that the Controller failed to address all objections and misinterpreted the scope of the product claim versus its therapeutic application. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the refusal order and remanding the case for fresh consideration.
Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Llc And Anr v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Amylin Pharmaceuticals appealed the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application for 'RELEASE FORMULATIONS USING NON-AQUEOUS CARRIERS'. The appeal challenged the finding that the invention lacked inventive step and fell under Section 3(d).
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The Plaintiffs sought exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation. The Court disposed of this application as infructuous and noted that the current suit involves the same Suit Patent as another pending infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). Consequently, both suits were listed together for further proceedings.
Sterlite Technologies Limited v.Aberdare Technologies Private Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of two patents related to optical fiber production. The defendants filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of these same patents. Both parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.
Lmw Limited v.Marzoli Machines Textile S. R. L & Anr.
Lmw Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of Indian Patent number IN 496349. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file necessary pleadings, setting future dates for listing.
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute, notably vacating an earlier ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against Defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by presenting inaccurate facts regarding the termination of a franchise agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the original parties (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2) were referred to arbitration. Separately, the Court allowed additional documents for evidence while permitting Defendants No. 3 and 4 to join proceedings after recalling an ex-parte order.
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Ashim Kumar Ghosh against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'SoEasy'. The core issue was whether the mark, used for instructional and teaching material, possessed sufficient distinctiveness. The court ruled that 'SoEasy' is a suggestive mark—requiring consumers to use imagination and thought to connect it to educational products—and therefore qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Fdc Limited v.Healing Pharma India Private Limited
Fdc Limited filed a suit against Healing Pharma India Private Limited alleging multiple infringements related to its pharmaceutical products. The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural aspects, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of additional documents. Crucially, the court also addressed interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing products confusingly similar to Fdc's registered trademarks (ZIFI) and copyrighted trade dress (ELECTRAL).
Dharma Production Private Limited v.Bhallaram Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dharma Production Private Limited seeking a stay on an injunction preventing the release of their movie, 'Jigra,' due to alleged trademark violation. The court initially found that prima facie, naming a movie does not constitute trademark infringement when the appellant is not trading in goods or services under that name. However, given that the film had already been released, the High Court ultimately disposed of the appeal while directing the Trial Court to proceed with the temporary injunction application and the main suit strictly according to law.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker's ’590 patent covering smart‑meter appliances. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references for all 62 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2025-11-21) under reference UPC-000226, Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France appeared in dispute with Viatris Santé concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
UPM-Kymmene Oyi v.International N&H Denmark
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A notice of decisions on institution was issued, denying several IPRs and granting others, while the status of Amazon's IPR against Smart Speaker remains pending.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A USPTO notice details institution decisions for several IPRs, leaving the status of Amazon’s challenge to Smart Speaker’s patent unresolved.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
The document lists PTAB institution decisions for multiple IPRs, but does not provide a decision for IPR2026-00146.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker's ’174 smart‑home patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider key prior art and that the claims recite routine home‑automation functions.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging MYW Semitech’s 11,538,763 chip‑package patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the patent before the PTAB.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,107,768, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering chip‑package technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of MeshDynamics' ’762 VoIP mesh‑network patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition includes claim constructions and requests the Board to institute review.
Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed settlement discussions between Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The defendant proposed settling the suit by conceding the plaintiff's proprietorship in the 'BABAJI' trademark, aligning with a previous court arrangement. The court noted that this proposal was made without prejudice to other pending litigations, requiring the plaintiff to take instructions before deciding whether to accept the offer.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
1. When assessing the inventive step from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied upon. Also in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art. 2. If the claimant in revocation action decides no
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network‑1’s eUICC security patent (U.S. 12,166,869) faces a petition from Samsung. The patent owner argues the references either teach away or lack the required cryptographic linkage, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC security patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering secure profile provisioning and IMSI encryption.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.