IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 22 of 56 · 1,677 total
Structural Integrated Panels Private Limited v.Hexpressions Megatech Private Limited & Anr.
The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing integrated panels, filed a suit seeking the revocation of Patent No. 360834 held by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioner claims that the patented technology is identical to its own commercially available product and that the patent claim is factually misleading.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by Netgear seeking to accelerate the appellate proceedings against Huawei. Netgear argued that strict deadlines would prevent them from presenting their defense in time, given the urgency of the underlying case. However, the Board of Appeal rejected this request, emphasizing the importance of maintaining an orderly and fair procedure for all parties involved. The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural fairness often outweighs claims of urgent necessity in UPC litigation.
Ynsect v.The Controller Of Patents
Ynsect appealed the Controller of Patents' rejection of its patent application concerning a method for treating insects. The High Court found that the Controller failed to adequately analyze the differences between the subject invention and the cited prior art, particularly regarding higher protein content and lower fat content. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
M/S Kwality Food Products v.Anil Singla @ Anil Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Kwality Food Products against Anil Singla and others, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court noted that the plaintiff has been continuously using the 'Ruchi' marks for spices since 1992, establishing common law rights. Given the identical nature of the goods and deceptive similarity of the packaging, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark to prevent consumer confusion.
PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt Ltd v.Kavitha Kuruganti
This appeal challenged the revocation of a plant variety registration (FL 2027) granted to PepsiCo. The initial Single Judge affirmed the revocation primarily due to incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale and failure to submit requisite documentation. The High Court allowed PepsiCo's appeal, setting aside the revocation order while noting that the mistake in styling as 'new' was remediable.
Gunjan Sinha @ Kanishk Sinha v.The Union Of India And Another
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity (vires) of Section 53 of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner argues that this section is contrary to Section 11A(7) because it restricts patent subsistence based on the date of application rather than the date of publication. The court addressed preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and res judicata before adjourning the matter for arguments on merits.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Scandinavia Aktiebolag et al.
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division in Munich revoked EP 3 797 685 B1 during an infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott. The patent covered communication systems for analyte monitoring devices, specifically glucose monitors like FreeStyle Libre 2. Because the patent was found to be invalid and subsequently revoked, the Court dismissed all claims of infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of concurrent revocation proceedings in UPC litigation.
Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd v.Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr
This order addresses an interim injunction application filed by Kudos Pharmaceuticals Limited (Plaintiff) against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Pvt Ltd (Defendant). The court noted that the suit patent IN'720 was nearing its expiration date. The parties debated whether to proceed with the hearing given the imminent expiry and broader legal questions regarding patent coverage versus disclosure.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE, Tesla Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the admissibility of evidence regarding corporate authority and patent assignment validity in an underlying dispute. The court ruled that while general power of attorney documents were provided, specific Board of Directors' resolutions authorizing the transfer of the disputed patent were necessary for the respondent to properly assess the claimant's legal standing. This highlights the critical importance of internal corporate governance documentation in complex IP litigation.
F- Hoffmann -La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking permanent injunctions and recall orders against the defendant regarding the sale of 'Sigrima', a biosimilar of Pertuzumab, infringing patents IN 268632 and IN 464646. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate irreparable loss.
Ab Initio Technology Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs / The Controller of Patents
Ab Initio Technology Llc challenged the rejection of its patent applications, which were initially denied on grounds that the subject matter was merely a computer program per se or algorithm (Section 3(k)). The appellant argued that their data processing method provided a 'technical effect' by improving resource efficiency. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeals to the extent that the objections under Section 3(k) and Section 16(1) were found not tenable, setting aside those impugned orders. However, the court remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh examination regarding inventive step (Section 2(1)(ja)).
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses a motion for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) in an SEP dispute concerning 4G mobile phone standards. OPPO and OROPE sought access to Panasonic's confidential licensing agreements to bolster their FRAND defense, arguing that transparency was necessary. The Court ultimately rejected these requests, stressing the principle of proportionality and the need to protect trade secrets, even when dealing with SEPs.
Monsanto Technology, LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, The Patent Office
Monsanto Technology appealed the order of the Assistant Controller which refused to patent two independent claims related to transgenic soybean plants. The appellant argued that if objections were raised, at least the remaining eleven claims should have been patented. The High Court found the respondent had not applied its mind wholly to all claims.
Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited v.M/S Savera Eats
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order in favor of Tipping Mr Pink Private Limited against M/S Savera Eats. The Petitioner sought injunctions against the Respondent for continuing to use the registered 'BURGER SINGH' trademarks after a franchise agreement had been terminated. Given the alleged ongoing infringement and reputational damage, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure of all infringing materials at the Respondent's premises.
Sanjay Mehra v.Jagdish Choudhary
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sanjay Mehra, proprietor of the trademark 'SUPERON', against Jagdish Choudhary. The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting an identical mark for allied goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. This protective order prevents the defendant from using the disputed marks until the final hearing.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a complex jurisdictional and procedural issue concerning the interplay between national revocation proceedings (in Germany) and an action before the Unified Patent Court. The court confirmed that while the parties in the German and UPC actions were distinct, necessitating the rejection of Mala's primary request to decline jurisdiction, it ultimately granted the crucial auxiliary request for a stay. This ruling provides significant guidance on when procedural fairness requires the UPC to pause proceedings pending outcomes in parallel national litigation.
Smt. Uma Rathi v.Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd.
Smt. Uma Rathi initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'Ratni Power' registered by Keshavdeep Iron Traders Pvt. Ltd., citing grounds under Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court granted exemptions for filing certain documents while simultaneously directing that notice be issued to the respondents. This marks the formal commencement of litigation challenging the validity and registration of the disputed trademark.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by The Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method of activating a continuous annealing furnace. The Controller had rejected the application, citing lack of inventive step based on prior art (D1 and D2). The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter to the Controller.
The Food Masters v.V G And Group & Ors.
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'THE FOOD MASTER', the Delhi High Court suspended an existing ex parte injunction. The suspension was granted to allow the court to comprehensively assess conflicting claims regarding prior use and senior adoption by both parties. The court directed both sides to place crucial documents, including evidence of user status from 2013 and details of a related suit filed in Faridabad, on record before proceeding.
M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar v.Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi
The appellant, M/s Shri Gorakh Bhandar, appealed against an order where the Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation of imported shoes bearing the United Colors of Benetton (UCB) logo and imposed penalties. The Tribunal found that the goods were counterfeit, infringed UCB's trademark rights, and therefore constituted prohibited goods liable for absolute confiscation.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. Z.o.o, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the proper filing of exhibits and the extension of deadlines in an infringement action involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities. The Defendants argued that procedural errors, such as the exhibit replacement request not being filed by the strictly designated CMS representative, warranted a full deadline extension. However, the UPC Panel rejected this argument, emphasizing the general duty to support proceedings and the need for efficient case management. The Court confirmed that while flexibility exists in representation (Rule 8.2 RoP), procedural extensions must be used cautiously. The ruling reinforces the principle that parties cannot benefit from their own non-compliance with procedural duties.
Merck Kgaa v.Bharat Patel
Merck Kgaa successfully secured an ex parte ad interim injunction against Bharat Patel in the Delhi High Court. The court found that Merck's trademark 'MERCK' is well-known and granted immediate relief, preventing the defendant from using any confusingly similar marks or names. This ruling underscores the strong protection afforded to established, globally recognized trademarks under Indian law.
Sree Devi Video Corporation v.M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures
The plaintiff sued the defendants seeking a declaration that it was the absolute owner of limited video, cable TV, and internet copyrights in certain films, acquired from M/s.Sri Murugan Pictures under an agreement dated 02.12.2000. The suit also sought permanent injunction against infringement by the defendants. The court found that the plaintiff successfully established its case through documentary evidence.
Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH v.Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware and Engg Works
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik GmbH against Devki Nandan Malik. The court granted exemptions to the plaintiff regarding filing documents and pre-institution mediation, while simultaneously allowing urgent interim relief. Crucially, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the defendant's premises, seize counterfeit goods bearing the 'AKEMI' trademark, and examine relevant financial records.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC appellate case involved an application by 10x Genomics to reopen proceedings following a ruling that overturned an initial injunction against NanoString Technologies. 10x argued that the original judgment violated fundamental procedural rights, specifically regarding the court's reliance on its own technical expertise rather than party-submitted evidence. The Appellate Court firmly rejected this claim, stating that judicial assessment of facts and evidence is not subject to review in a reopening application, thereby upholding the previous decisions.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences & Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited and Pranjali Swapnil Pimprikar Trading As A2 Lifesciences reached a full settlement regarding trademark disputes concerning the 'ALL OK+' product. The defendant acknowledged Mankind's exclusive rights to its trade dress and agreed not to use any confusingly similar marks. In exchange, the plaintiff dropped claims for damages, allowing the defendant to continue using the mark provided the trade dress was distinct.
Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Elder Projects Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Antex Pharma Pvt Ltd, restraining Elder Projects Ltd and its representatives from issuing baseless threats of legal action against the plaintiffs concerning the use of the trademark 'ELDER' and 'ELDERVIT'. The court relied heavily on a prior judgment establishing that the registered ownership of the 'ELDER' mark belongs to Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), which is currently in liquidation. This ruling protects the plaintiffs from harassment while maintaining that the interim order does not grant them absolute entitlement to use the trademark.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural appeal concerning the rectification of a defendant's name in five revocation actions. The appellant, Juul Labs International, Inc., challenged the initial court order that corrected the name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.'. The Court ultimately rejected this appeal, upholding the administrative correction. Crucially, the ruling also provided a detailed interpretation of UPC Rules regarding costs, confirming that cost allocation can only occur in the final decision on the merits.
Hindustan Unilever Limited v.Fabs Industries
Hindustan Unilever Limited filed a suit against Fabs Industries for infringement of its trademarks ('SURF/SURF EXCEL', Splat logo) and copyrighted trade dress. The parties reached a settlement, which was formalized through Consent Minutes of Order.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd; CUPOWER Europe GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division decided to consolidate the infringement lawsuit brought by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against CUPOWER entities with a counterclaim for patent revocation regarding EP 2 011 218 B1. The court justified this unified approach based on efficiency and the moderate complexity of the technology involved. This decision sets an important precedent for how UPC panels manage complex litigation, allowing them to address both infringement and validity simultaneously.
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.