IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 56 · 1,677 total
Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology Corporation Limited v.G.Parthasarathi
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by Guangzhou Ruifeng Audio Technology. The petition sought to remove or rectify the registration of Trade Mark No. 1958762, specifically requesting that the applicant be recognized as the proprietor via assignment. However, due to the petitioner's failure to appear before the court on the scheduled date, the petition was dismissed for default.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v.Interdigital Technology Corp. & Ors.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile filed appeals challenging a single judge's order that imposed deposits, costs, and restricted their ability to secure respondents with an Indian Bank guarantee. The dispute centers on the alleged infringement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to telecommunication standards by mobile device manufacturers.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance addresses the balance between public transparency and the protection of confidential business information during an infringement case. The court confirmed that while proceedings are generally public, it retains the power to limit access during the interim conference if sensitive data is discussed. This decision provides clear guidance on how parties can manage their proprietary information within the UPC framework.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case concerning infringement of EP4074373, the Local Division decided to refer the revocation counterclaim and the claimant's request for patent amendment to the Central Division in Paris. This decision was based on procedural efficiency, as the core arguments against the patent were already being litigated in a prior central action initiated by one of the defendants. The court ruled that maintaining parallel proceedings would violate the principle of process economy.
Make Up Art Cosmetics Inc. v.Pankaj Laljibhai Kachadia & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court addressed a rectification application concerning the trademark 'MAKSHINE,' which was flagged as likely to be removed due to non-renewal. Citing precedents from other high courts, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the mark from its official website. This order allowed the petitioner to file a fresh petition should the trademark eventually be renewed, effectively resolving the immediate issue while preserving future rights.
Imclone LLC v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Imclone LLC appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody targeting PDGFR alpha, which was rejected under Section 3(c) as being a naturally existing substance. The appellant argued that the antibody was generated through complex hybridoma and transgenic mouse technology, making it recombinant and non-naturally occurring. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the claimed invention was not excluded from patent protection.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In a request for security of legal costs, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled against Ona Patents SL. The court found that despite the Claimant's arguments regarding its solvency, it failed to provide sufficient financial evidence to convince the court. Consequently, the court ordered Ona Patents SL to deposit EUR 500,000 as security for the Defendants' potential legal costs. This decision highlights the stringent requirements placed on NPEs seeking enforcement in UPC proceedings.
Peak Xv Partners Advisors India Llp & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs' application to implead WhatsApp LLC in a trademark infringement suit concerning deceptive online investment schemes. The court found prima facie evidence that certain administrators of the 'Peak XV 1026' WhatsApp group were using the Plaintiff's trademark and images of their Managing Directors to create an impression of authenticity. Consequently, WhatsApp was directed to block access to the implicated accounts and provide subscriber information to aid in identifying the perpetrators.
Sequoia Capital Operations Llc & Ors. v.Seene Trader & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Sequoia Capital Operations LLC and Peak XV Partners against the alleged fraudster 'Senee Trader'. The court granted several urgent reliefs, including exempting the plaintiffs from pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court directed domain name registrars (Dynadot, Gname) to suspend relevant domains and mandated government bodies (MeitY, DoT) and financial institutions (NPCI) to take steps to permanently block or remove access to fraudulent websites, social media accounts, and UPI IDs used by the defendant.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This UPC decision is procedural, concerning a preliminary measures application related to EP2152073. The defendants requested a postponement of the oral hearing due to scheduling conflicts for their counsel. After considering both parties' availability and the Court's proposed dates, the court granted the request, rescheduling the hearing.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division addressed complex issues surrounding pleading redactions and deadlines in a multi-faceted infringement and revocation case involving Panasonic and Xiaomi. The court allowed for an exception regarding redacted documents but firmly maintained that the timelines for challenging the patent's validity (revocation) remain separate from the main infringement proceedings. This decision clarifies how procedural hurdles, such as document presentation, interact with substantive legal challenges in the UPC.
Rajesh Sultania And Anr. v.Arun Kumar Murarka
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by Rajesh Sultania and Anr. which challenged the rejection of a plaint in an infringement suit brought by Arun Kumar Murarka. The Petitioners argued that the Respondent lacked standing to sue for trademark infringement because he was not the registered proprietor of 'YEH KHILA YEH KHILA.' However, the Court found that the comprehensive nature of the Respondent's claim—which included both copyright and trademark infringement—disclosed a valid cause of action. Furthermore, the court noted an assignment deed supporting the Respondent's ownership claims, concluding that the preliminary rejection of the plaint was correct.
M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. v.M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of M/S Shrinath Travel Agency & Ors. against M/S Shreenath Cargo Movers & Ors. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the similarity between the marks and the services provided (travel, transport, logistics). Crucially, the defendants were ordered to deactivate their infringing domain name within one week, while the operational injunction would take effect after a six-week grace period.
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, Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co. Ltd., Xiaomi H.K. Limited, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division sets the stage for a complex UPC case involving Panasonic and various Xiaomi entities regarding EP 2 568 724. The court has meticulously structured the oral proceedings, dedicating the first day to technical issues like patent validity and infringement, and the second day to the critical FRAND licensing framework. This detailed planning highlights the complexity of modern SEP litigation within the UPC.
Mohd Shakir v.Gopal Traders & Anr.
Mohd Shakir appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed his petition seeking cancellation or rectification of a work registered under No. A-120894/2017, which was claimed by Gopal Traders & Anr. The core dispute revolves around the mark "MYA," where the appellant claims prior rights based on third-party trademark registrations held by Mr Youssef and Mya International. The court found the matter required examination and issued notice to all respondents.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
In a significant revocation action concerning electronic vapour products, the UPC Central Division dismissed NJOY Netherlands B.V.'s challenge against VMR Products LLC's patent (EP 2 875 740 B1). The Claimant argued that the patent lacked inventive step, but the Court ruled that the alleged lack of inventiveness was not substantiated by the prior art cited. This decision reinforces the robustness of certain technical innovations within the vaping market and serves as a strong defense for patentees against validity challenges.
V.K.R.Venkatesan v.V.Mahendran
V.K.R.Venkatesan filed a civil suit against V.Mahendran alleging multiple infringements related to the 'VKR SIVAJI BRAND' mark and associated artistic works used on rice products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against trademark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. However, before any judgment was passed on the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed an endorsement requesting withdrawal of the suit.
Surindar Pal Singh v.Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi and New Ichhadhari and Others
The Madhya Pradesh High Court listed the case involving Surindar Pal Singh and Ichhadhari Lassi Old Ichhadhari Lassi. The court granted time to both parties to verify the outcome or status of a pending rectification application filed under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act. This indicates that the dispute over the trademark's validity or registration is still active and awaiting further judicial determination.
Freebit AS v.Exotic Mile Private Limited
Freebit AS, a Norwegian corporation, filed an infringement suit against Exotic Mile Private Limited (operating under the brand "Boult") alleging that their products infringed Freebit's registered patent IN'748 for an improved 'C'-shaped earphone interface. The appellant sought an interim injunction but it was rejected by the Single Judge on grounds of non-disclosure and potential patent invalidity. This appeal challenged the rejection, but the High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision regarding the denial of interim relief.
Texas Instruments Incorporated v.Network Systems Technologies LLC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural request for expedition made by Texas Instruments during an appeal concerning security for costs. The court rejected the motion, finding that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines in the ongoing proceedings. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for requesting procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
The plaintiffs, ITW GSE APS, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd for infringing their registered patent IN 330145. The patent relates to a Preconditioned Air Unit (PCA) with Variable Frequency Driving (VFD). The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case and granted an interim injunction.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a purely procedural matter concerning the admissibility of an appeal against a first-instance order. The appellant, Photon Wave Co., Ltd., challenged the lack of explicit authorization to appeal. The court ruled that under Rule 220.2 RdP, such authorization must be expressly granted by the Tribunal; general references are not enough.
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt Ltd v.C.K. Electricals
Gold Medal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a Leave Petition before the Bombay High Court to initiate a trademark infringement suit against C.K. Electricals. The petitioner sought leave despite the defendants operating outside Mumbai, arguing that jurisdiction could be established based on the plaintiff's business presence in Mumbai under Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court examined the jurisdictional provisions and found that no special leave was required.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
In a procedural ruling concerning the infringement of EP3611989, Huawei sought court orders to introduce and protect a confidential license agreement with Amazon. The Local Chamber confirmed these provisional measures, granting strict secrecy protection for the document. Crucially, the court also allowed the use of this sensitive licensing information in related split proceedings, balancing commercial needs with IP confidentiality.
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed multiple writ petitions seeking directions to the Registrar of Trade Marks to permit the filing of renewal applications for several registered trademarks. The petitioner argued that due to the failure of the Registrar to issue timely notice, they were entitled to renew the marks as a successor-in-interest. The Court held that while the lapse by the Registrar is noted, the petitioner must first register the assignment deed before applying for renewal.
Gala Industries, Inc. v.Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Gala Industries appealed the rejection of its patent application for a 'Centrifugal Pellet Dryer Screen With Integral Embossed Deflector Strips'. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, relying on prior arts D1 and D3. The High Court found merit in the appellant's submissions, noting that the invention improved upon D1 by using embossing instead of nut-bolting.
Swatch Ag And Ors v.Labham Agarwaal and Ors
The Swatch Group (and its associate companies) filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against several defendants for trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation related to their luxury watch brands. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to adequately prove their case during the trial, particularly regarding the seized goods and wrappers.
Saint-Gobain Placo v.Pooja Industries (Indigyp Frames)
The Plaintiffs are seeking to permanently restrain the Defendant from infringing their Indian Patents related to construction elements. The Defendant is accused of trading in products that are copies of the Plaintiffs' patents.
Shrinath Travel Agency Through Its Partners & Anr. v.Harsh Kumar Trading As Shrinath Nama Travel Agency & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the Plaintiffs to implead several additional defendants in a trademark infringement suit. Finding a prima facie case of deception due to identical or deceptively similar marks being used for identical travel services, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the newly added parties from using the impugned trademarks. Furthermore, the court directed domain registrars associated with infringing websites to block and suspend access to those domains.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.Healios K.K, Osaka University
This interim order in a revocation action concerning EP3056564 involved ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE against Healios K.K and Osaka University. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date for June 26, 2024, while also making key procedural decisions. Notably, the court admitted new evidence (D21) and formally set the value of the dispute at EUR 4 million for cost calculation purposes. This order demonstrates the UPC's active management of complex biotech revocation cases.
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.