IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 24 of 56 · 1,677 total
Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd. v.R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Bombay Metal Works P. Ltd., preventing R.S. Industries Regd. & Anr. from continuing to use packaging that is deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress for Ball Head Racers. The court found a prima facie case regarding the defendants' attempt to pass off their products as those of the plaintiff, noting the similarity in color combination and overall get-up despite differences in trademarks.
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. v.The Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. filed an appeal challenging the order dated February 29, 2024, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application (no. 202117021605). The High Court granted exemption in a related interlocutory application and directed parties to file written submissions.
Amycel LLC v.Szymon Spyra
This procedural order addressed a request for simultaneous interpretation during preliminary injunction proceedings in the UPC. The individual defendant, Szymon Spyra, requested Polish-English interpretation due to language concerns. Although the Court affirmed the right of parties to be heard, it rejected the request for court-funded interpretation (R. 109.1 RoP). Instead, the Defendant was permitted to arrange and pay for his own interpreter (R. 109.4 RoP), emphasizing that costs are generally borne by the party requesting non-official language support.
Bundi Technologies Private Limited v.Chandrasinh Dhirubha Rathod
The plaintiff, Bundi Technologies Private Limited (owner of the well-known trademark 'SWIGGY'), filed a suit against several defendants for illegal adoption and unauthorized use of its trademark. The defendants were allegedly manufacturing confectionery products under or with deceptive similarity to the 'SWIGGY' brand name to deceive the public.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) to provide collateral against potential future cost orders. NST argued that its small size and US domicile made enforcement of judgments difficult. The Court countered this by stating that general concerns about foreign judgment enforcement were unfounded and found no evidence of NST's actual insolvency risk, thereby upholding the Claimant's right to access justice.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed an order dated January 19, 2024, where its patent application (No. 201614010107) for 'Enhanced Aerosol Test for Assessing Filter Integrity' was refused by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs due to lack of inventive step. The court issued notice and set a date for further hearing.
Hygieia, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Hygieia appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 10225/CHENP/2013) by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on various grounds, including Section 59, which alleged that the amended claims exceeded the original specification. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that a patent specification must be read as a whole.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Seller Services Private Limited & Ors.
The court addressed several interlocutory applications in the patent infringement suit filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and others. The court disposed of the application seeking exemption from mediation and dismissed the application filed by Defendant No. 5 seeking deletion from the array of parties, affirming that all defendants are necessary for the dispute.
Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. v.Sangeeta Jaiswal
The Madras High Court closed two Original Petitions filed by Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd against Sangeeta Jaiswal regarding the rectification/cancellation of registered trademarks (Nos. 3207838 and 3207840). The parties reached an amicable settlement, leading to the petitioner's agreement that the respondent would proceed with separate applications to cancel the marks. The Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expedite the cancellation process.
Gunakar Private Limited v.Assistant Controller of Patents & Design, The Patent Office
Gunakar Private Limited filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging an order dated 22nd February, 2019, passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Design regarding patent application no. 201621033630. The appeal sought to quash the rejection and allow the claims.
M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s.V.A.Mishra & Sons, issuing a Writ of Mandamus against The Registrar of Trademarks. The petitioner sought direction to accept an old renewal request (dated 27.03.2013) for their trademark due to alleged inaction by the Registry. The Court found that the mandatory notice required under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, was not provided to the proprietor. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to accept the renewal request and allow further renewals.
Usha International Limited v.Rex Global Limited & Anr
In a trademark dispute concerning the mark 'BUTTERFLY', the Delhi High Court allowed Usha International Limited (Plaintiff) to introduce crucial additional evidence. This decision was made in response to Rex Global Limited's (Defendant) allegations that the Plaintiff lacked proprietary rights and concealed material facts, specifically referencing an earlier adoption of the mark by a Chinese entity. The court recognized the necessity of these documents—ranging from Trade Marks Office reports to records from the Chinese Chamber of Commerce—for a comprehensive adjudication of ownership claims.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.
DexCom, Inc v.Abbott Laboratories
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The Appellants (Abbott) sought to challenge the penalty ceiling set in the order but failed because they had not obtained 'leave to appeal' as required by Rule 220.2 RoP. The court ruled that without this prerequisite authorization, the appeal was inadmissible from its inception.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Natco Pharma Limited for alleged infringement of their valid patent, IN 334397, related to compounds for treating spinal muscular atrophy. The court registered the plaint as a suit and addressed several interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and setting timelines for written statements.
Frances Shenker v.M/S Allanasons Private Limited
In a dispute over the 'STEAKHOUSE' mark, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by the defendant seeking to challenge the plaintiff's registered trademark. The court found prima facie merit in the defendant's contention that the descriptive word might be invalid under Section 9 of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the court framed the issue regarding the validity and rectification of the mark and granted the defendant three months to file a formal rectification petition.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC; Arvato Netherlands B.V.; Digital River Ireland Ltd.
In this preliminary injunction proceeding, Ericsson sought to proceed despite alleged non-compliance by its opponents with disclosure rules (R. 13.1(h) RoP). The defendants argued that the lack of full documentation from prior proceedings harmed their defense. However, the UPC Court ultimately dismissed the defendants' request, finding that R. 13.1(h) only requires information about the existence of prior actions, not the exhaustive disclosure of all associated evidence like pleadings or expert reports. This decision clarifies the scope of procedural compliance in urgent provisional measures cases.
Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors. v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. filed applications seeking intervention to prevent the disclosure of a Patent License Agreement (PLA) dated 1st June, 2014, between Samsung and InterDigital Group Companies. The dispute centered on whether the PLA could be shared with defendants' in-house representatives within a confidentiality club established by the court. The Court ultimately directed that the PLA must be shown to the defendants' representatives, subject to specific restrictions.
Volkswagen AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In a decision concerning security for legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Munich rejected the request made by Network System Technologies LLC against Volkswagen AG and Audi AG. The court held that general allegations regarding enforcement difficulties in the US were insufficient to justify requiring the claimant (NST) to provide security. This ruling reinforces the principle of access to justice within the UPC framework, particularly for SMEs.
Novartis Ag & Ors. v.Noviets Pharma & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement dispute between Novartis Ag & Ors. and Noviets Pharma & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and granted an exemption from mandatory pre-suit mediation. Crucially, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit, setting out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements, replications, and affidavits of admission/denial, while also addressing the preliminary injunction application seeking restraint against trademark infringement.
Blick System India Private Limited v.Franz Safford And Others
The case involves a petition for revocation of a patent granted to the defendant and a counter suit alleging infringement of the suit patent by the plaintiff.
M/S Rspl Health Private Limited v.Bhagwati Gram Udyog Mandal & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by M/S Rspl Health Private Limited, confirming a prior compromise reached with Respondent No. 1 in TM-84/2021. As part of this settlement, the respondent undertook to cancel their registered trademark 'SAKSHI XPERIA' and withdraw all related applications for marks containing 'XPERT' or 'XPERIA'. Consequently, the court disposed of all pending applications, upholding the terms of the compromise.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a dispute over the artistic work 'ENERZY powder' between Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Curewin Hylico Pharma Pvt. Ltd. The core legal battle centered on whether the Commercial Court was correct in directing the plaintiff to amend their plaint based on an agreement dated 22.01.2015, specifically regarding valuation for court fees. The High Court examined the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution and ultimately ruled that the statutory copyright right should govern the suit's substance, not solely the contractual terms.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the correct naming of parties in revocation actions. The respondent, NJOY Netherlands B.V., sought to rectify the defendant's name from 'Juul Labs, Inc.' to 'Juul Labs International, Inc.', which was deemed a clerical error. The court rejected the appeal against this rectification order, confirming that the procedural steps taken by the Court of First Instance were correct. Crucially, the ruling also clarified the timing for cost allocation in UPC proceedings.
Dexcom International Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action against EP4070727, the UPC granted Dexcom International Limited leave to amend its counterclaim. Dexcom sought a declaration that their G7-System and G7-Receiver did not infringe the patent after Abbott narrowed its initial claims. The court ruled in favor of Dexcom, accepting that they could not have reasonably anticipated Abbott's claim withdrawal at the outset, thereby allowing them to seek legal certainty regarding non-infringement.
NanoString Technologies Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the critical interplay between preliminary injunctions, their subsequent revocation, and the enforceability of associated penalty orders (Zwangsgelder). The court established that because initial injunctions are generally retroactive, overturning them eliminates the legal foundation for any coercive fine order. This ruling provides significant clarity on risk management for patentees relying on provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appellate decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning claim expansion in ongoing infringement litigation. Netgear challenged the lower court's determination of the response deadline for Huawei after EP 3678321 was added to the case. The Appellate Court affirmed the principle that defendants must receive full defense rights, but corrected the start date of the period, ensuring procedural fairness and clarity. This ruling provides important guidance on how courts must manage deadlines when expanding patent claims mid-litigation.
Fdc Limited v.Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Fdc Limited against Zaventis Healthcare Private Limited. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's adoption of the mark 'ZIFISAFE' for identical pharmaceutical products constitutes a blatant attempt to capitalize on the established reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's registered trademark, 'ZIFI'. Citing prima facie evidence and irreparable harm, the court restrained the defendant from using the infringing mark until the final hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for complex oral hearings in UPC case UPC_CFI_210/2023. The proceedings are highly structured, dedicating one day to technical infringement and validity issues, and a second day to the critical FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) aspects of the dispute. Given the involvement of OPPO and Panasonic, this case is significant for understanding how the UPC manages intertwined technical disputes with complex antitrust/FRAND claims.
Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Audi AG sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC based on jurisdictional issues and the lack of evidence. The Court partially rejected these objections, allowing the core infringement claims to proceed. Crucially, the court emphasized efficiency, deciding that complex matters like UK damages and patent validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than being dismissed upfront.
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.