IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 56 · 1,677 total
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited
This UPC decision is a procedural order in an ongoing infringement and revocation case between Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd and Netgear entities concerning EP patent No. 3 678 321. The court addressed the resignation of one of the technically qualified judges assigned to the panel. Consequently, the court mandated the reassignment of a new judge to maintain the integrity and continuity of the proceedings.
SodaStream Industries Ltd. v.Aarke AB
In a costs-related proceeding, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf dismissed Aarke AB's request for security of costs against SodaStream Industries Ltd. The Court emphasized that ordering such security requires concrete evidence demonstrating either financial instability or a high risk that an UPC judgment would be unenforceable. The defendant failed to substantiate its claims regarding the claimant's willingness to comply with cost decisions, especially given the claimant's affiliation with the financially strong PepsiCo group.
M/S New Bharat Overseas v.M/S Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed an application for substitution, recognizing that the original petitioner's trademark and copyright rights had been assigned to a new entity, M/s New Bharat Impex. The court held that since the cause of action now rested with the assignee, the substitution was necessary for effective adjudication. This order ensures continuity in IP litigation following a change in ownership.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In this UPC procedural order, Ona Patents SL successfully sought protection for confidential information against Apple Inc. and its subsidiaries. The court confirmed that sensitive data, including internal profit margins and specific technical details about product functionalities, qualifies as a trade secret under Article 58 EPC. This ruling reinforces the scope of trade secret protection in the UPC, clarifying that even negative statements or limited access to specialized knowledge can warrant confidentiality.
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.Mylan Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, allowing its appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's rejection of its opposition. The core issue was the strict adherence to timelines regarding evidence submission. The court held that while deadlines are necessary for discipline, they should not extinguish a party's substantial rights, especially when those rights face imminent threat from registration. Consequently, the opposition has been restored and the matter is directed to be disposed of according to law.
UTI Infrastructure Technology and Services Ltd. v.Extra Tech World and Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission from the Bombay High Court under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to file a Commercial Intellectual Property Rights Suit against the respondents. The core issue was establishing the court's jurisdiction, given that the infringing websites were accessible across India.
Dilip Kumar Jain v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed four Original Petitions (Trade Marks) filed by Dilip Kumar Jain. These petitions sought the revocation of several 'Sumeet' trademarks registered in various classes, arguing that their entries were wrongful and without sufficient cause. The court accepted a request from the petitioner's counsel to withdraw all pending matters, leading to the dismissal of the cases.
Berger Paints India Ltd. v.JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the word 'silk' in relation to paint products. While acknowledging that 'silk' can be used descriptively to denote a specific product finish, the court cautioned against its misuse as a trademark that could lead to consumer confusion (passing off). The court allowed JSW Paints Pvt. Ltd. to continue using 'silk' on their product tumblers, provided they strictly limit its use only to products with a silk finish and clearly state this description in advertisements. The core proprietary rights of Berger Paints India Ltd. over the term remain undecided pending trial.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.Riddhi Siddhi Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark suit against Riddhi Siddhi Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite having an office in Mumbai. The court examined the jurisdiction clause and confirmed that Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, grants this court jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business location. Consequently, the court held that no special leave was required and made the petition absolute.
Rahul Kapoor Trading As Royal Field And Co. v.Naresh Kumar Trading As Ms Nutan Malleables
The Delhi High Court addressed procedural applications in a trademark rectification case concerning the mark 'ROYAL'. While granting an exemption from filing certified copies, the court also accepted the application for condonation of 143 days of delay. The core petition seeks to rectify the trademark 'ROYAL' based on the discovery of a competing registered mark owned by the respondent, arguing likelihood of confusion among consumers.
AIM Sport Development AG v.Supponor Oy, Supponor Limited, Supponor SASU, Supponor Italia SRL, Supponor España SL
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies a critical point regarding the transitional regime: whether prior national court proceedings can block an effective withdrawal of an opt-out. The Court held that Art. 83(4) UPCA only restricts actions brought during the transitional period, meaning pre-transitional litigation does not invalidate a subsequent opt-out withdrawal. This ruling provides significant clarity and relief for patent holders seeking to utilize the UPC system after initially opting out.
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks Delhi
Lifestyles Healthcare Pte Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trademarks Delhi's refusal to register the trademark 'SKYN' in Class 5. The Delhi High Court accepted notice and directed both parties to file detailed submissions on the matter. This marks an active legal challenge regarding the registrability of the mark.
T-Mobile Usa Inc v.Controller Of Patents
This order pertains to an appeal filed by T-Mobile Usa Inc against the Controller of Patents. The matter involves the interpretation of Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, and was released from part-heard due to roster constraints.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses procedural requests made by Xiaomi regarding confidentiality protections for third-party license agreements related to EP 2568724. The court denied Xiaomi's request for enhanced access restrictions and preliminary injunctions against a former defendant. The ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural timelines, stating that parties must act early when seeking complex protective measures like those under Rule 262A VerfO.
Neela Film Productions Private Limited v.Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in favor of Neela Film Productions Private Limited (Plaintiff) in its copyright and trademark infringement suit against Taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.Com & Ors. (Defendants). The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation, allowed the plaintiff to serve advance copies on a specific defendant despite lack of contact details, and directed that the plaint be formally registered as a commercial suit. These orders pave the way for the substantive trial concerning the alleged infringement of the popular show 'Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah'.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.; NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH; NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an appeal regarding provisional measures for infringement of EP 4 108 782, a patent covering methods for multiplex analyte detection. The court ultimately rejected the injunction request filed by 10x Genomics against NanoString Technologies. Beyond the outcome, the ruling provides important guidance on claim construction, stressing that interpretation must be holistic, integrating the description and drawings with the claims to ensure adequate protection while maintaining legal certainty.
Pfizer Inc v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Pfizer Inc has filed an appeal against the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs' order dated March 27, 2024, which refused to grant a patent. Pfizer contends that the refusal was arbitrary, incorrectly concluding that the subject matter lacked technical advancement or failed Section 3(d) requirements.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. s.p.a.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH successfully obtained a provisional measure from the UPC Local Division in Milan, securing an order to preserve evidence and inspect premises of Danieli Group companies. The applicant sought this ex-parte order based on strong suspicion that the defendants' products infringed EP 2624977, which covers drivers for steel strip coiling installations. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant early investigative measures when a clear prima facie case of infringement and patent validity exists.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a significant revocation action, the UPC Central Division completely revoked EP 2 794 928 B1, which covers methods for detecting analytes. The court determined that the patent lacked novelty over existing prior art (Göransson). This decision aligns with previous findings from both national courts and the Court of Appeal in related cases. The ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to rigorous examination of patent validity and strict adherence to procedural deadlines.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp. z.o.o, TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Order concerns an application to intervene in a patent infringement and revocation case involving NEC Corporation against various TCL entities, concerning HEVC Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The intervener is Access Advance LLC, the administrator of the relevant SEP pool. The Court ruled that the pool administrator possesses a genuine legal interest in the outcome, thereby admitting them as a party to the proceedings. This decision clarifies the procedural rights and limitations regarding confidential information access for patent pool administrators participating in UPC litigation.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.The Controller of Patents
Qualcomm appealed an order from the Patent Controller rejecting its invention titled 'ENHANCED BLOCK-REQUEST STREAMING SYSTEM FOR HANDLING LOW-LATENCY STREAMING'. The appeal argued that the Controller failed to adequately consider the appellant's written submissions and did not correctly assess the novelty and inventive step against prior art. The High Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals appealed a rejection order by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was based on two grounds: that the amendment sought changed the scope of invention (violating Section 59), and that the subject matter lacked substantial benefit to mankind (Section 3(b)).
Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar And Others
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Waterways Leisure Tourism Private Limited against Ashok Kumar and others. The court found a prima facie case that the respondents were illegally imitating, impersonating, and infringing upon the petitioner's registered trademarks ('Cordelia Cruises') and copyrighted material related to its cruise services. The order specifically restrained the defendants from using the plaintiff's marks across all media platforms and directed the blocking of an offending website until the final hearing.
Nakul v.Versuni India Home Solutions Limited
The court addressed several applications in the suit, including granting time for the plaintiff to file a replication. Crucially, the defendant filed a counterclaim under Section 64 of The Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 319855. Additionally, the court allowed the defendant to submit prior art via an encrypted pen drive.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Ideal Technoplast Industries Limited & Ors.
The plaintiff, Mold-Tek Packaging Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered patents and designs. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the plaintiff, including exemption from advance service and pre-litigation mediation. Furthermore, the court allowed an application for Local Commissioners to conduct search and seizure at the defendants' premises regarding alleged patent infringement.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The court passed an order addressing two interlocutory applications filed by the defendant. The first application led to the addition of a specific issue concerning the validity of Patent IN 233161 under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The second application modified the schedule for leading evidence.
Novenco Building & Industry A/S v.Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private Ltd.
The defendant filed an application seeking the return of the plaint, arguing that no cause of action had accrued in Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants were selling infringing fans and conducting business in the state. The court dismissed the application, holding that the defendants' techno-commercial offer made in Baddi demonstrated they were carrying on business within the territorial jurisdiction.
Mr.A.S.Nagabhushana v.M/s.Shesha Matching
This Madras High Court judgment records the settlement of trademark disputes between Mr. A.S. Nagabhushana and M/s. Shesha Matching. The original petitions, which sought to expunge registered trademarks (SESHA) from the registry, were ultimately dismissed as withdrawn. Both parties reached a compromise agreement on July 8, 2024, resolving the conflict without further litigation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Morepen Laboratories Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Mankind Pharma against Morepen Laboratories. The court granted exemptions regarding document filing and pre-institution mediation, while proceeding with the main injunction application (I.A. 38001/2024). The plaintiff alleged dishonest adoption of their registered trade dress and copyright for a pregnancy detection strip, leading to claims of infringement and passing off. The defendant countered by arguing that the plaintiff approached the court belatedly.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
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.