IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 56 · 1,677 total
Saint Gobain Placo & Anr. v.M/S Steel India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs to be exempted from pre-litigation mediation and advance service. The court also granted permission to file additional documents and, crucially, ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendants' premises to gather evidence regarding patent infringement.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc., NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC infringement case between Huawei and Netgear, the court issued an order revoking a previous decision to appoint a translation expert. The revocation was based on the parties' mutual agreement that critical Chinese-language documents related to the patent were identical. This procedural step simplifies the ongoing litigation, allowing the case to proceed without the need for external linguistic verification.
Dolby International AB v.HP Deutschland GmbH, HP Inc., HP International SARL, HP Austria GmbH, HP France SAS, HP Belgium SPRL, HP Inc Danmark ApS, HP Finland Oy, HP Italy S.r.l., Hewlett-Packard Nederland BV, HP PPS Sverige AB, HPCP – Computing and Printing Portugal, Unipessoal, Lda., Hewlett-Packard d.o.o., Hewlett-Packard Luxembourg SCA
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues concerning deadline extensions and confidentiality requests (R. 262A) in a complex infringement case involving Dolby International AB against HP entities. The court established that comprehensive responses to FRAND objections require access to patent pool personnel, necessitating potential adjustments to disclosure rules. Crucially, the court opted for a uniform extension of all deadlines rather than a partial one, prioritizing procedural efficiency and preventing disparate timelines between technical and non-technical parts of the case.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Riken, Osaka University
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications in two revocation actions concerning patents EP3056563 and EP3056564. Both the Claimant, Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine, and the Defendants confirmed that they had reached a settlement. The Court accepted their request to dispose of the cases under Rule 360 RoP, confirming that settlement allows for case disposal without mandatory judicial confirmation. The ruling reinforces the principle of party disposition in UPC proceedings, allowing parties flexibility in concluding actions outside formal judgment. Furthermore, the court granted the Claimant a reimbursement of court fees, underscoring the procedural encouragement for early settlements.
Havells India Limited v.B R Engineering Works & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Havells India Limited against B R Engineering Works & Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement based on the deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's well-known trademark 'STANDARD' and the defendant's mark 'STANDANGER', along with the adoption of similar trade dress elements. This crucial interim relief prevents the defendants from continuing to use the infringing marks while the main suit proceeds, reinforcing the protection afforded to established brands in the electrical goods sector.
Aratana Therapeutics, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs
Aratana Therapeutics appealed the Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201747026233), which related to a weight-gaining compound for animals with chronic maladies. The appellant argued that their claims were limited to oral administration methods and did not claim a permanent cure, contrary to the Controller's interpretation under Section 3(i).
Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc v.Controller Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's order rejecting their patent application, which cited three pieces of prior art (D1, D2, D3) as making the invention obvious. The court found that the impugned order failed to provide a useful analysis of how the combination of prior arts led to the conclusion of obviousness. Furthermore, the court noted the rejection of amendments lacked proper discussion.
V.K.R.Venkatesan Trading as V.K.R. Prakash Modern Rice Mill v.M.Selvanambi Trading as Sri Venkateswara Modern Rice Mills
V.K.R. Venkatesan filed a civil suit against M. Selvanambi, alleging infringement of his 'SIVAJI BRAND' trademark and copyright violation concerning rice packaging. The original prayer sought permanent injunctions, damages, and accounting of profits due to the defendant's use of similar marks and labels. However, on April 16, 2024, the court noted that the plaintiff's counsel had requested withdrawal of the suit, leading to its dismissal.
Levi Strauss And Company v.Sanchit Garg
Levi Strauss & Company filed a suit against Sanchit Garg alleging that the defendant was clandestinely stocking, storing, and selling jeans and apparel bearing deceptively similar trademarks ('Levi's', 'Two Horse Logo') and infringing designs. The court found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.
M/S Lavos Performance v.M/S Yashram Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Trial Court that dismissed its application to stay proceedings in an infringement suit, arguing that a revocation petition against the respondent's patent was pending before the competent authority. The Karnataka High Court ruled that while evidence relating to alleged infringement could be recorded, the final arguments on the merits of the suit must wait until the outcome of the patent revocation application.
L Oreal v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
L Oreal appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which rejected its patent application (No. 4652/DELNP/2013) for a process using thiopyridinone compounds. The appellant argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoning, and failed to consider expert reports or properly analyze prior art under the Patents Act, 1970.
Mars Incorporated v.Rf Limited And Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed the suit filed by Mars Incorporated against Rf Limited And Ors. following a comprehensive settlement between the parties. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement and passing off related to the distinctive packaging, trade dress, and branding of Mars' PEDIGREE pet food line. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants acknowledged Mars' proprietary rights and agreed to cease manufacturing or marketing pet foods using an identical trade dress or get-up for their 'PETYUM' brand.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics to change the language of proceedings from German to English, matching the language in which the patent was granted. The court found that while both parties faced some disadvantages, retaining German placed a greater burden on Samsung, who needed to prepare its defense in English. Consequently, the application was granted, setting the stage for the main infringement proceedings to proceed in English.
Wipro Chandrika Private Limited v.Soji Thomas
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Wipro Chandrika Private Limited seeking rectification of the trademark register against Soji Thomas. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove and cancel the trade mark 'CHANDRA' (Trade Mark No. 4628777) from Class 3, based on a prior settlement agreement between the parties. This decision effectively cleared the path for the petitioner by removing the conflicting registration.
T.N.Janarthanan Trading as Namma Veetu Kalyanam Catering v.Mr.N.Venkatesan; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two original petitions (OP(TM)/38 & 40/2024) filed by T.N.Janarthanan seeking the rectification and cancellation of trade marks registered by Mr. N. Venkatesan. The court noted that the first respondent had subsequently initiated applications for the cancellation of the disputed registrations before the Registrar of Trade Marks. Since the underlying issue was being addressed through administrative channels, the petitions were deemed infructuous.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a significant preliminary order, the UPC Local Division Hamburg rejected the request by Tandem Diabetes Care to stay an infringement action concerning its t:slim X2 insulin pump. The court emphasized the efficiency of the UPC system, stating that it is appropriate for the local division to hear both the infringement claim and the pending revocation actions simultaneously. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural delays should not impede the pursuit of patent rights when a joint hearing can ensure a uniform legal outcome.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by Samsung Electronics GmbH for security for legal costs against Headwater Research LLC. The court found that Headwater, an NPE whose business model relies solely on patent litigation revenue, failed to sufficiently rebut the defendants' claims regarding its limited financial standing. As a result, the Claimant was ordered to deposit €100,000 as security for costs.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a pending interlocutory application in the trademark infringement suit. The court framed an additional issue to determine whether the defendant is liable to pay additional damages for using the impugned mark after the suit was revived, given that the original ad interim injunction had stood. With evidence complete and parties consenting not to lead further evidence, the matter was scheduled for final hearing.
Bayona Spa v.Varun Exports & Ors.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a petition concerning a trademark dispute between Bayona Spa and Varun Exports & Ors. The court noted that the respondents had filed an application to withdraw the impugned mark before the Trademarks Registry. Consequently, the petitioner's relief was deemed infructuous, leading the court to issue directions for the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration No. 4188398 in class 25.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a procedural ruling, the Paris Local Division addressed a request by Laser Components SAS to change the language of proceedings from French to English. Although the patent in question (EP3404726) was granted in English, the Court found that there were insufficient grounds based on convenience or equity to mandate this change. The decision reinforces the procedural flexibility and the importance of respecting the initial filing choice made by parties in UPC litigation.
Vifor (International) Limited v.Msn Laboratories Pvt Ltd
Vifor (International) Limited appealed an interim injunction order that restricted its claims to only the process aspect, arguing against the narrow interpretation of product-by-process patents. The Delhi High Court addressed the significant issue of how such claims should be construed under the Patent Act, 1970. The court clarified that a patent's scope cannot be limited solely by the process used, emphasizing that claim construction must define the full extent of the monopoly granted to the patentee. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the restrictive judgment was set aside.
Professor Jayashankar v.Monsanto Technology LLC
Professor Jayashankar filed an Original Petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 232681, granted to Monsanto Technology LLC, under Section 64 of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005. The petition was heard by the Madras High Court on June 13, 2024. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear despite being served notice, the court dismissed the Original Petition for non-prosecution.
Qrg Enterprises & Anr. v.Hpl (India) Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court decreed a trademark dispute between Qrg Enterprises and HPL (India) Limited based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court upheld the plaintiffs' proprietary rights in the 'HAVELLS/HAVELL'S' mark, granting permanent injunctions against the defendants. Crucially, the judgment clarified that since the defendant's name change was mandated by the decree and not voluntary, they would not be bound by the proviso to Section 12(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, ensuring the settlement's enforceability.
Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd v.M/S. Welldorf Labs & Ors.
In a significant development for trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court allowed Wellcon Animal Health Pvt Ltd to proceed with its petition seeking rectification of the mark 'APTIFAST'. The court accepted the respondent's instruction to voluntarily withdraw the registered trademark. Consequently, the petitioner's case was disposed of on the condition that the respondents formally file an application for withdrawal within three weeks, ensuring the mark is struck off the register.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses how defendants can submit large video recordings as evidence in an ongoing infringement action. The court clarified that although USB sticks are permitted for exceeding CMS size limits, a specific two-step procedure involving a new R. 9 application and a 'physical exhibit description' document must be followed to ensure proper registration with the Court's system. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules when introducing physical evidence in UPC proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural review concerning the connection joinder of two parallel infringement proceedings involving Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The core dispute centered on whether consolidating the cases would violate principles of proportionality or lead to contradictory rulings. The panel ultimately approved the initial order, finding that the risk of divergent decisions was minimal due to shared judicial oversight across both divisions. This ruling reinforces the UPC's flexibility in case management while maintaining strict adherence to procedural fairness.
Meril Italy Srl v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
This procedural order from the UPC Court of Appeal addressed requests for expedition in multiple appeals concerning EP 3 646 825, a patent covering a prosthetic heart valve. The court ultimately rejected Meril's pleas to accelerate the proceedings, citing that existing legal mechanisms could manage the risks associated with pending validity challenges. This decision reinforces the standard procedural timetable of the UPC unless exceptional circumstances are met.
Eli Lilly And Company v.Natco Pharma Limited
The suit concerned allegations by Eli Lilly And Company that Natco Pharma Limited was infringing Indian Patent No. IN 297760 related to Abemaciclib. The dispute was resolved amicably, with the Defendants agreeing not to launch any product containing Abemaciclib until the patent expires or is invalidated.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited; Meril GmbH; Smis International OÜ; Sormedica UAB
In this procedural order, the UPC denied a request by an applicant (a member of the public/investor) seeking access to all pleadings and evidence in ongoing infringement and counterclaim proceedings. The Court held that while transparency is important, the integrity of the private dispute must be protected until the case concludes. This decision reinforces the principle that requests for public access must be highly specific and demonstrate a direct, plausible interest related to the patent's subject matter.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No.5542/CHENP/2010), which was rejected primarily on grounds that the claimed 6E4 antibody was an inherent feature and not patent-eligible under Section 3(c) as it was discovered in nature. The High Court set aside the rejection, holding that the specific method of production made the antibody patentable.
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.