IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 56 · 1,677 total
Meril GmbH v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This UPC appellate decision concerns a dispute over court fees in an appeal filed by Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. against Edwards Lifesciences Corporation. The original case involved infringement allegations related to heart valve prostheses. The current ruling focuses purely on procedural matters, specifically determining the correct fee for the appeal based on the nature of the underlying decision (an order concerning provisional measures). The court ultimately ordered the appellants to pay a remaining balance of €9,500.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appellant filed an auxiliary request proposing amended claims for their patent application. These amendments were necessitated by limitations granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The court addressed issues related to prior art and whether the subject application constitutes a method of treatment.
Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.Karthikeyan Manishekar
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and removal of the trademark 'HANS VENBA' (No. 3917470) following a settlement reached between the petitioner, Murali Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd., and the first respondent, Karthikeyan Manishekar. The court confirmed that the registration would be cancelled as per the terms of the memorandum of settlement executed on August 7, 2024. Consequently, the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the entry from the register within four weeks.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a request for confidentiality protection regarding sensitive recipe information in an ongoing infringement case. The court balanced the need for trade secret protection against the parties' right to conduct their defense. Ultimately, while granting strict confidentiality measures, the Court rejected the respondent's attempt to severely restrict access, allowing all named claimants to view the protected documents.
M/S Shilpa Medicare Limited v.M/S. Salus Pharmaceuticals And Another
The defendants filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the plaintiff had not demonstrated urgency and failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court found contradictions in the plaintiff's statements regarding when they became aware of the infringement and noted a significant delay between knowledge/patent grant and filing the suit.
M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Mh 7 News And Anr
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S M.H. One Tv Network Pvt. Ltd., cancelling the trademark registration 'MH7' held by the respondents. The court found that the mark 'MH7' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established and prior trademark 'MH1'. Given the similarity and the fact that both parties operate in the same media/entertainment sector, the court determined that the respondent's registration was illegal and liable for removal.
Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. v.Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited
The Delhi High Court decreed the trademark infringement suit filed by Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (Amul) against Sarda Dairy & Food Products Limited. The judgment was reached after both parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement. Defendant No. 1 acknowledged that the plaintiff's trademarks and trade dress were valid, and undertook to cease all use of similar marks/labels. Consequently, the court upheld the terms of this settlement, granting relief to Amul.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr. v.M/S Domind Pizza & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favor of Domino's IP Holder LLC against several competing pizza businesses. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar trademarks, such as 'DOMIN'D PIZZA,' which was causing confusion and damaging the reputation of the established 'DOMINO'S PIZZA' brand. Furthermore, the court ordered food delivery platforms like Zomato and Swiggy to immediately de-list the infringing listings.
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated filed an appeal against the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117031510. The appellant contends that the refusal was erroneous as the application meets all criteria for patentability, while the respondent argued it failed tests under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), and 3(e)/3(i) of the Patents Act.
Gala Precision Engineering Limited v.Nord Lock Ab
Gala Precision Engineering Limited filed suits seeking a declaration that its manufacturing and sale of washers does not infringe Nord Lock Ab's patent. The defendant submitted that these suits were not maintainable as they raised issues already subject to a suit filed by Nord Lock Ab (CS(COMM) 895/2023).
Pinnacle Engines Inc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, The Patent Office
Pinnacle Engines Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application (No.8612/CHENP/2012) for an opposed piston engine with non-collinear axes of translation, arguing that it provided a technical advance over conventional collinear engines. The court found potential prior art relevant to the inventive features and remanded the application for reconsideration.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition, rather than the merits of the underlying infringement case. Texas Instruments sought to accelerate the appeal process, arguing that delays increased its legal costs while awaiting security for costs. The court ultimately rejected this plea, finding the request too vague and lacking sufficient justification to override standard procedural timelines.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application to partially withdraw an appeal in an infringement case. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, sought to remove two respondents (Xiaomi NL and Xiaomi DE) from the ongoing appeal proceedings. However, the Court ruled against this withdrawal, emphasizing that even indirect interests—such as those related to service obligations or the course of litigation—constitute a legitimate interest under UPC rules. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness requires all affected parties to be heard.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
In this procedural order concerning the revocation of EP2145848, Oerlikon sought to introduce an eighth auxiliary request (AR8) based on new prior art. The UPC Court ruled against Oerlikon, emphasizing that Rule 30.2 ROP is a restrictive measure designed to prevent endless amendments and maintain procedural efficiency. This decision reinforces the strict requirements for introducing subsequent amendments in patent litigation.
Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v.Olx India B. V. & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed applications concerning the ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Reliance Industries against Olx India. The court confirmed that the existing interim injunction, initially granted to prevent misuse of 'JIO' and 'RELIANCE' trademarks in job advertisements, would continue throughout the pendency of the suit. Furthermore, the scope of this injunction was clarified to apply specifically to job-related misuses, while reserving rights for further action regarding product sales.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
The suit involved Interdigital Technology Corporation alleging infringement of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by Guangdong Oppo Mobile. The parties filed interlocutory applications regarding document discovery and the constitution of a confidentiality club. The court ruled that defendants must disclose their agreements with Qualcomm, while rejecting plaintiffs' request for Ericsson and Orange S.A. agreements.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM device patent (EP2713879) by the GS1 device. The UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction, immediately prohibiting the defendants from offering or placing the infringing product on the market in the relevant member states. This ruling is significant as it demonstrates the court's willingness to grant urgent relief based on sufficient interest, even when facing initial objections.
Inox India Private Limited v.Cryogas Equipment Private Limited
This appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenged the dismissal of a Commercial Trademark Suit, which had been rejected on the grounds that the suit was barred by Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centered on whether proprietary engineering drawings used for commercial vehicles qualified as an artistic work under copyright law and if their protection lapsed after exceeding a production threshold of 50 units. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the Commercial Court to reconsider both the rejection and injunction applications simultaneously.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited & Anr.
Novartis appealed an order that allowed certain amendments in its Indian Patent Application (IN'518) based on a finding that pre-grant opponents should be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The core dispute centered on whether the examination process and opposition proceedings are independent or merged under the Patents Act, 1970.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott GmbH, etc.)
In a procedural order concerning the dispute between DexCom, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories regarding EP 4 026 488, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted an extension of time for filing key pleadings. Although the Defendants did not consent to the delay, the Court found that granting the extension was justified on grounds of fairness and equity. This order highlights the procedural flexibility available within the UPC framework when balancing strict timelines against the practical needs of complex litigation.
Bp P.L.C. & Anr. v.Subhash Chandra, Trading As Shivay Enterprises
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking summary judgment. While noting that the defendant had previously complied with a court injunction and ceased using the impugned trademarks, the court did not grant immediate relief. Instead, it allowed the defendant to file a response regarding claims for costs and damages, keeping the litigation active.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural matter concerning an appeal, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings and shorten deadlines. Volkswagen argued that delays were causing increased legal costs related to security for costs. The court ruled that the request lacked sufficient substantiation and specificity, emphasizing adherence to established procedural timelines and principles of proportionality.
Satnam Brush Industry v.Amul Brush Company & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the ongoing dispute between Satnam Brush Industry and Amul Brush Company. Crucially, the court granted an interim injunction to Satnam Brush Industry, recognizing that the defendants' packaging and trade dress were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well-established brand 'AMBER'. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendants' books of accounts and infringing products, signaling a deep dive into the alleged infringement and passing off.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated November 9, 2023, which refused its patents application. The court first allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several procedural matters in CS(COMM) 225/2024 and CS(COMM) 226/2024. It allowed the plaintiff time to file replication, issued notice for the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of Patent No. 319855, and granted permission to the defendant to submit prior art evidence via a pen drive.
SMC NOVA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED v.SURYA MARKETING COMPANY
The Delhi High Court ordered the settlement of an IP dispute between SMC Nova Estate Private Limited and Surya Marketing Company. The matter specifically concerned the respondent's mark in relation to Tea and Elachi products. As part of the resolution, the petitioner agreed to file documentation showing a proposed change in their packaging and trademark, replacing 'NOVA' with 'SUPERHOVA', before the court.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation v.The Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application, which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step and lack of unity of invention. The High Court found that the Controller failed to assign valid reasons for either rejection ground. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC decision concerns the intervention of a patent pool administrator (Access Advance LLC) in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC Corporation and various TCL entities. The court affirmed that such administrators possess a genuine legal interest in the outcome, despite their involvement being primarily economic. This ruling clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' for third-party interveners in UPC proceedings, particularly those managing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning SEP EP 3096315, the court addressed a request by the defendants for extensive document disclosure related to the claimant's licensing history. The court ultimately rejected most of these requests, finding them too vague or superseded by the parties' own actions. This ruling reinforces the principle that while transparency is important in FRAND negotiations, broad demands for historical portfolio data are not automatically granted and must be narrowly tailored.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH, Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC decision addressed a procedural motion regarding the production of corporate documents in an infringement case involving Avago Technologies and Tesla. The respondents sought internal Board of Directors resolutions to challenge the claimant's legal standing (active legitimation) concerning patent ownership and assignment validity. The court partially granted this request, compelling the claimant to produce specific transfer authorization documents necessary for the respondent to properly defend their position under Rule 190.1.
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.