IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 38 of 56 · 1,677 total
International Education & Research Foundation v.Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Tax (DCIT)
The assessee, International Education & Research Foundation, appealed against orders charging TDS and interest on annual payments made to international education boards like IBO/Cambridge. The Assessing Officer held that these payments constituted royalty for the use of trademarks and services provided by the overseas institutions. The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for further clarification regarding the nature of the lump sum fees.
Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Vijay Kalra And Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a trademark dispute between Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Vijay Kalra And Anr., based on an amicable settlement reached by both parties. The settlement agreement mandated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledge the exclusive rights of the petitioner in 'VKC' marks and cease using similar trademarks like 'VKV'. Crucially, the court directed the Trademark Registry to process the withdrawal and subsequent rectification/removal of the infringing trademark from the register.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl; SCHNELL S.p.A.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal granted suspensive effect to an appeal filed by Progress Maschinen & Automation AG against an earlier decision. The original decision had revoked provisional measures for evidence preservation and ordered the return of gathered evidence. The court ruled that allowing immediate enforcement would severely undermine the Appellant's ability to successfully challenge the order. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the judicial discretion available under UPC rules to prevent procedural outcomes from becoming moot.
M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works v.Deluxeagriculture Industries Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, overturning a rectification made by the Trademarks Registry that had transferred ownership of the 'Deluxe' trademark to Deluxe Agriculture Industries Private Limited. The court found that the purported Deed of Assignment was invalid because Respondent No. 2 denied executing it and alleged forged signatures. Consequently, the registration was restored to M/S Deluxe Agriculture Works, affirming their original proprietorship.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Court Munich accepted the mutual agreement by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and Xiaomi Inc. to withdraw all pending infringement claims and counterclaims related to three European patents. This decision effectively terminated the complex litigation proceedings without a final judgment on patent validity or infringement. The court also confirmed the parties' right to receive a partial refund of their court fees, reflecting the procedural nature of the settlement.
Interdigital Technology Corporation v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
Volkswagen AG and Audi AG v.Network System Technologies LLC
In this preliminary objection case, Volkswagen and Audi (Claimants) sought to dismiss an infringement action against Network System Technologies LLC (Respondent). The Court of First Instance partially rejected these objections. While some initial procedural hurdles were noted, the court emphasized efficiency, ruling that complex issues like damages and validity must be addressed within the main proceedings rather than dismissing the case outright.
Ht Process Controls Private Limited v.Ankur Gupta & Ors.
The petitioner, Ht Process Controls Private Limited, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of its intellectual property rights over confidential information and technical know-how related to an automatic robotic system for gas cylinder handling. The Court passed several orders allowing various applications, including granting exemptions and directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to conduct searches and seizures at the defendants' premises.
M/s.Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works v.M/s.Ganga Products
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Mysore Sangam Agarbatti Works against the Registrar's decision rejecting its opposition to Ganga Products' trademark application for 'DEVICE OF LORD SHIVA'. The court held that names of Hindu deities are not exclusive and cannot be monopolized, citing established Supreme Court precedents. While dismissing the appeal, the court granted liberty to the appellant to seek cancellation under Section 47 if the mark is eventually registered.
Pravesh Narula Trading As M/S. Capital Enterprises v.Raj Kumar Jain Trading As M/S. Bholaram Puranmall And Anr.
The Delhi High Court permitted the plaintiff to amend their plaint, allowing them to incorporate facts regarding the subsequent registration of their trademark. The court emphasized that amendments are necessary for the proper adjudication of a case and should not be rejected on hypertechnical grounds, especially when avoiding multiplicity of litigation is at stake. This ruling reinforces the liberal approach courts must take when considering pleadings amendments in IP disputes.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sibio Technology Limited
In a provisional measures case concerning an on-body glucose sensor device (EP3831283), the UPC Court of First Instance denied the application filed by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The core finding was that the patent likely suffers from 'added matter,' making it probable that the claims would be invalidated during full proceedings. This decision not only blocked the preliminary injunction but also mandated that the applicant bear the costs of the current proceedings.
Spv Laboratories Private Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs
Spv Laboratories Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the order dated June 14, 2024, issued by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on non-compliance with requirements under Section 60(3) of the Patents Act, 1970, due to failure to pay the renewal fee within the statutory period.
Carrier Corporation v.BITZER Electronics A/S
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the critical procedural issue of staying revocation proceedings pending opposition proceedings at the EPO. The court clarified that while harmonization is a goal, it does not mandate a stay simply because parallel actions exist. Crucially, acceleration requests by the patent proprietor are insufficient; the applicant must demonstrate an expectation of a rapid decision to justify halting UPC litigation.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
In this UPC CFI decision, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding an Application to Amend filed during a revocation action. The claimant argued that the defendant's application was inadmissible because it failed to use a separate workflow in the CMS. However, the Court rejected this argument, ruling that filing the amendment alongside the defense met the statutory deadlines and adhering strictly to specific CMS workflows cannot override principles of fairness. This decision provides clarity on procedural flexibility during the early stages of UPC proceedings.
Mona Aggarwal v.Sandhya Gupta
This Delhi High Court order addresses a rectification petition filed by Mona Aggarwal against the trademark 'Super MULTI PLUS' used by Sandhya Gupta. Mona Aggarwal argues that since her prior passing-off suit established her as the prior user, and Sandhya Gupta failed to provide documentary evidence of use since 1994, the registration should be cancelled as fraudulent. The court has noted these arguments but deferred a final decision, setting a date for further hearing.
Nokia Technology GmbH v.Mala Technologies Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a preliminary objection raised by Mala Technologies Ltd. in a revocation action against Nokia Technology GmbH concerning EP 2 044 709 B1. The Court rejected the objection, thereby confirming its jurisdiction and allowing the main proceedings to continue. Crucially, the ruling also denied requests for procedural delays, such as staying the case pending decisions from the German Federal Court of Justice or extending deadlines. This reinforces the UPC's commitment to timely and efficient dispute resolution.
SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors. v.Mr Vishal Choudhary
The plaintiffs, SNPC Machines Private Limited & Ors., filed an application seeking a permanent injunction against Mr. Vishal Choudhary for allegedly manufacturing and selling similar brick making machines that infringe on their patents (Nos. 353483, 359114, etc.) and copyrights in technical literature. The court found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of infringement.
Evergreen Sweet House v.JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.
Phillip Morris Produts S A v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Design
Phillip Morris Produts S A filed an appeal challenging the order dated 30.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, which rejected their Patent Application No. 202117030336. The court issued notice and directed the matter to be listed before a specific Bench.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In this procedural application, Microsoft Corporation challenged the admissibility of an infringement action brought by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy concerning EP 2 671 173. Microsoft argued that the claimant was improperly represented and that the statement of claim lacked specificity. The UPC rejected these arguments, holding that a representative's administrative involvement does not negate their independence for procedural purposes. The court also found that the claims for injunction and damages were sufficiently clear, allowing the infringement action to proceed.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC appeal case addressed the scope and continuation of confidentiality protections for sensitive business information. Curio Bioscience sought to restrict access to specific documents during appellate proceedings, but the UPC Board of Appeal found that a prior order from the Court of First Instance already covered these materials. The ruling emphasizes the continuity of protective measures under the UPC framework, preventing parties from seeking redundant relief.
Master Arnesh Shaw v.Union Of India & Anr.
The court heard matters concerning the procurement process for medicines used for DMD patients, noting that the current patient-by-patient system is cumbersome and unrealistic. The court directed M/s. Sarepta Therapeutics to present a general bulk procurement process and disclose its relevant patent portfolio in India.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses a request for protection of confidential information during an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1. The Court accepted the defendants' requests to keep specific financial data—related to revenue, profit, and sales figures—confidential as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of confidentiality rules within UPC proceedings, allowing for protection even when strict procedural timing requirements are not met.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought a preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis regarding its biosimilar product Epysqli®, which challenges Alexion's patented antibody for treating PNH. The UPC Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. The court found that while infringement could be established, there was insufficient certainty regarding the patent's validity to warrant an immediate injunction.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Tiba Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed suit alleging infringement of their Indian Patent (IN269841) covering the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted exemption from advance service, noting that the Defendant had not yet launched infringing products. Furthermore, the court passed detailed orders allowing for an ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to search premises and seize any infringing stock.
Telefonktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Pub) v.Lava International Limited
This Delhi High Court judgment addresses a complex dispute over Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) between Telefonktiebolaget LM Ericsson and Lava International Limited. The court examined the validity, novelty, and inventive step of several patents asserted by Ericsson against Lava. While the suit patent IN 203034 was subject to revocation proceedings, the judgment ultimately affirmed the validity of seven other key patents held by Ericsson. Consequently, the Court passed a decree in favor of Ericsson for substantial damages related to past infringement.
Tata Power Solar Systems Limited & Anr. v.Www.Tatapowersolardealership.Co.In & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, finding that several defendants were infringing on its registered trademarks ('TATA' and 'TATA POWER SOLAR'). The court recognized the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the brand. Furthermore, the judgment included significant ancillary relief, directing the suspension of specific domain names and mandating the freezing and transfer of funds from bank accounts linked to the infringement activities into a designated RBI fund.
Disys India Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court set aside an earlier refusal by the Registrar of Trademarks to grant registration for the mark 'DISYS'. The appeal argued that the refusal, based solely on phonetic similarity to another mark ('DISYSO'), failed to consider evidence of the appellant's long-standing use and acquired distinctiveness. The court found the original order was a non-speaking order, necessitating a remand back to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application on its merits.
City Glass And Glazing Pvt Ltd v.Ozone Overseas Pvt Ltd
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has suppressed information regarding the utilization of the patent and has fabricated invoices to demonstrate its working. The Defendant contests the validity of the Plaintiff's claims and seeks dismissal of the application based on these allegations.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc appealed a rejection order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs regarding Patent Application No. 2260/DELNP/2008. The rejection was based on lack of novelty and falling under 'algorithms'. With consent from both parties, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the application for fresh consideration.
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.