IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 56 · 1,677 total
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns an application by a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation and TCL entities. The core issue was whether the Applicant had a sufficient legal interest to participate, given that the dispute involved FRAND licensing obligations under the HEVC standard. The Court ultimately permitted the intervention but imposed strict confidentiality measures on the access to sensitive negotiation details.
Designarch Consultants Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Jumeirah Beach Resort Llc
The Delhi High Court disposed of cross-appeals between Designarch Consultants and Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC based on a comprehensive settlement agreement reached by both parties. The settlement mandates that Designarch must cease using certain 'BURJ' formative marks (other than BURJNOIDA) and refrain from designing buildings resembling Jumeirah’s pictorial references. In return, Jumeirah agrees to withdraw several cancellation petitions filed against Designarch's trademarks, while Designarch acknowledges Jumeirah's ownership of its key brands.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.Navkar Agriculture Industries
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against Navkar Agriculture Industries. The court found a prima facie case regarding the alleged infringement of the 'SHAKTIMAN' trademark and associated artistic work/trade dress used on agricultural products like rotavators. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from using similar marks or trade dresses, and the plaintiff was permitted to seize and seal all infringing material.
M/s.Babu Ram Om Prakash v.A.Manickavel
The Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition concerning the rectification of Trade Mark No. 502558 after both parties entered into a Joint Memorandum of Compromise. The petition, which had been transferred from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, was settled amicably between M/s. Babu Ram Om Prakash and A. Manickavel. This resolution allows the matter to be closed without further judicial intervention.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
In this procedural ruling, the UPC addressed a request by Heraeus Electronics to amend its infringement claims following changes in national patent litigation. The court permitted the amendment of direct infringement claims that reflected legal finality achieved elsewhere. However, the court rejected the late addition of an indirect infringement claim, citing lack of due diligence and arguing it should have been raised at the initial filing.
Havells India Ltd & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the suit filed by Havells India Ltd against Ashok Kumar John Doe & Ors. The core dispute involves alleged fraudulent investment schemes operating under the 'HAVELLS' brand name. Crucially, the court issued significant interim directions, ordering defendants to block access to infringing websites and provide complete disclosure/block of KYC details associated with accounts used for these illegal activities. Furthermore, procedural matters were settled, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of electronic evidence.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited
This procedural order in the Abbott v. Dexcom case addresses complexities arising from service issues across multiple defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur, utilizing UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), granted an extension and aligned the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all three Dexcom entities. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedural timelines in multi-defendant infringement actions.
Master Arnesh Shaw Through His Next Friend And ... v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petition addressed the cumbersome and long-drawn process for procuring specialized medicines for DMD patients on a patient-by-patient basis. The court directed M/s. Sarepta to document a bulk procurement process and provide details of all its relevant Indian patents and patent applications.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this procedural matter, the Court of First Instance rejected requests from both Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments for security for legal costs against Network System Technologies LLC. The court emphasized that general concerns about enforcing UPC judgments in the US are insufficient grounds to impose a cautio on claimants. This decision reinforces the principle that access to justice must be balanced against the need to protect IP rights, particularly for SMEs.
Victaulic Company v.Asst. Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Victaulic Company appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Mechanical Pipe Coupling having Spacers' on the grounds that it lacked inventive steps. The appellant argued that its invention, featuring a collapsible spacer, provided an advantage not present in the cited prior art (D1 and D2).
Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. v.M/S Vans Inc Usa
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Fateh Chand Bhansali & Anr. challenging an interim order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) regarding the word mark 'IVANS'. The court noted that the petitioners had previously withdrawn their challenge to the same interim order, and therefore, any substantive arguments should be reserved for the final hearing of the underlying cancellation petition. This decision reinforces the principle that challenges to IP decisions must be pursued through appropriate procedural channels.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application for 'Discovery of Secure Network Enclaves' by the Assistant Controller. The rejection was based on lack of inventiveness and indefinite claims violating Section 10(4). The High Court found procedural flaws in the rejection order, particularly regarding the sudden introduction of certain objections, and allowed the appeal.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna International France SARL, Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information within a running infringement case (UPC_CFI_460/2024). The Court granted the Claimant's request to classify specific exhibits from the Defendants' Statement of Defence as confidential. This ruling is crucial for managing sensitive trade secrets in parallel proceedings, allowing litigation to proceed while maintaining strict control over proprietary data.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
In this UPC case, Winnow Solutions Limited sought evidence from Orbisk B.V. to support its infringement claim regarding the food waste monitoring patent EP3198245. The Court of First Instance partially granted the request for production of documents (R. 190 RoP), compelling Orbisk to provide specific technical specifications on how their Orbi System functions, particularly concerning data categorization and error correction. This decision underscores the court's willingness to facilitate evidence gathering in complex infringement cases while maintaining safeguards for confidential business information.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Sun Pharma Laboratories, setting aside an order by the Trade Mark Registry that had declared its opposition to a rival mark ('LIBOSE') as abandoned. The core issue was whether the Registry properly served the counter statement to the appellant. The court held that since the Registry failed to provide concrete proof of service—relying only on a website notification—the principle of natural justice was violated, necessitating the remand of the matter.
Chirec Public School v.Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Chirec Public School's petition seeking to expunge a registered trademark (CHIREC) belonging to Shri Shakti Schools Private Limited. The court held that since the petitioner had not obtained prior leave from the trial court, and was reserving its right to file a fresh rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, the current filing was legally unsustainable. This decision underscores the procedural requirements for challenging trademark registrations.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
Pps International filed a petition before the Delhi High Court seeking the revocation of registered patent number 475011 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed an exemption application and issued notices to all respondents for filing their replies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc.
This procedural order addressed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for the UPC to compel Dexcom entities to disclose the entire distribution chain of their G6 and G7 diabetes monitoring systems. The Court ruled that while such information can be requested during proceedings, Abbott's specific demand was disproportionate. The judge found that because Abbott had targeted only certain distributors, requesting the full global supply chain was not reasonably necessary for advancing its case.
Jaipuria Edutech Foundation & Anr. v.Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Jaipuria Edutech Foundation against Shyamlalbabu Educational Trust. The court found that the defendant continued to use deceptively similar trademarks despite a terminated franchise agreement and cease-and-desist notices. This preliminary order restrains the defendant from using 'Jaipuria International Schools' and 'Seth M.R. Jaipuria School' marks, though the injunction will not take effect until July 15, 2024, allowing time for compliance.
Galaxy Packtech Private Limited v.Ashok Chaturvedi & Anr.
The petition seeks revocation of patent No. 282428 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Petitioner contends that they are an aggrieved person and that the Patent Office overlooked relevant prior art disclosures regarding the patented invention.
Kalpaka Builders Private Limited v.Intellectual Property Appellate Board
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Kalpaka Builders Private Limited challenging an order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB had cancelled the petitioner's trademark registration because the mandatory publication only featured the word 'Kalpaka,' while the registered mark was a device mark. The court upheld the IPAB's decision, finding no fault with the order as it merely remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Trademark Registry.
Is Eg Halal India Private Limited v.Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Is Eg Halal India Private Limited against Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. The court granted the plaintiff an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, recognizing the importance of their 'IS EG Halal' mark in the market. Furthermore, it appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to seize infringing packaging materials and inspect relevant books of accounts, ensuring immediate protection for the trademark holder.
CANÈ S.p.A. v.FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE
In a case concerning infringement of EP3181168, CANÈ S.p.A. and FRANCE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE reached an amicable settlement before the UPC Paris Local Division. The court formally homologated this transaction, bringing an end to the litigation. A key aspect of the decision was the ruling on procedural costs, where the claimant successfully claimed a 60% reimbursement based on the timing of the agreement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an application for provisional measures in the Düsseldorf Local Division, the UPC addressed the complex issue of language change mid-litigation. Although the Court of Appeal had set English as the official language after the oral hearing was conducted in German, the court made an exceptional ruling. It allowed the final decision to be issued in German, provided it included a certified English translation, thereby balancing procedural fairness with the need for judicial efficiency.
Dhama Innovations Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Dhama Innovations Private Limited appealed the rejection of its Patent Application No. 628/CHE/2012, which related to a heat dissipation device. The appellant argued that the Controller erred by dissecting the combination into individual components for obviousness testing and failing to address their submissions on inventive step. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the dissection impermissible in law.
M/S P.M. Diesels P. Ltd. v.M/S Thukral Mechanical Works & Ors.
In a complex 40-year dispute over the 'FIELDMARSHAL' trademark, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S P.M. Diesels Pvt. Ltd. The court set aside previous orders from the IPAB that had rejected P.M. Diesels' applications and cancelled a key registration held by Thukral Mechanical Works. This landmark decision allows P.M. Diesels to proceed with registering its mark, effectively resolving a long-standing conflict over brand ownership in the diesel engine sector.
Glow Shoes Private Limited v.Trk Industries Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant, Trk Industries Pvt Ltd, challenging the validity of Glow Shoes Private Limited's trademark registration No. 1467735 ('TRV') in Class 25. Despite unsuccessful settlement attempts between the parties, the court issued notice and scheduled the matter for further proceedings on August 29, 2024. This order keeps the dispute alive, allowing both sides to proceed with their arguments regarding trademark validity.
Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited v.N.Ananda Trading as M/s.Nandhini
The Madras High Court allowed appeals filed by Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited against the Trademark Registry's decision to dismiss its oppositions. The court found that while there was a similarity between the marks NANDINI and NANDHINI, the Registrar failed to exercise powers under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the opposition proceedings were remitted back to the Deputy Registrar with a direction to impose necessary conditions to allow both parties to peacefully co-exist in their respective businesses.
3G Licensing S.A v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appeal was filed challenging the rejection of a patent application. The Appellant argued that prior art cited by the Indian Patent Office had also been considered and the patent granted in Europe. The Court issued an interim order allowing the Appellant time to submit the European patent record.
R.Vishnu Prasad v.The Controller of Patents, The Patent Office
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the order that deemed his patent application abandoned due to a four-day delay in filing the response to the First Examination Report (FER). The appellant argued that the delay was minor and attributable to clerical error, and that the Controller had sufficient power to condone such irregularities. The High Court found the reasons acceptable and condoned the delay.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.