IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 44 of 56 · 1,677 total
Novartis Ag & Anr. v.Medisave Formulations India Llp
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in the trademark infringement suit filed by Novartis against Medisave Formulations. Recognizing the urgent nature of the case, the court exempted the plaintiffs from standard procedural requirements like advance service and pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search at the defendant's premises, seize infringing products bearing the mark 'ZYMADA', and inspect relevant financial documents, finding prima facie evidence of deceptive similarity between the marks and packaging.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the timing for filing an appeal statement following the granting of leave to appeal. Toyota sought a default judgment against Neo, arguing that Neo missed the deadline based on the date of the initial order. The Court definitively ruled that the relevant 15-day period begins only upon service of the specific decision granting leave to appeal, not the original impugned order. This ruling provides crucial clarity for practitioners navigating procedural deadlines in UPC appeals.
Himalaya Wellness Company And Ors v.Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company against Vlado Sky Enterprise Private Limited regarding trademark infringement. The court found a prima facie case for passing off, noting that the plaintiffs have established significant goodwill with their 'HIMALAYA' brand since 1930. Consequently, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing or selling products under the deceptively similar mark 'HIMALAYAN ORGANICS', though they were allowed three months to exhaust existing stock.
Enterabio Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents & Designs, Mumbai & Anr.
Enterabio Ltd. appealed against the rejection of its patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition containing insulin and a protease inhibitor. The High Court found that the Assistant Controller failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and did not comply with procedural rules regarding amendments. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller.
Mr.Rahul Bagga v.The Controller of Patent
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an abandonment order related to his patent application (No. 202041009246). The petitioner argued that he was unable to upload the response to the First Examination Report on the deadline due to technical/server errors on the respondent's website. The court found merit in this claim and ordered the abandonment quashed, directing the respondent to accept the response.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This procedural order in a UPC infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz addresses complex requests for expanding the scope of claims, particularly concerning Romania's accession to the UPC. The court proposed a unified approach to allow all parties' amendments to proceed, thereby streamlining the litigation process. This decision highlights the Court's focus on procedural fairness and efficiency when dealing with evolving jurisdictional scopes.
Erytech Pharma v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Erytech Pharma filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Patents) challenging the Assistant Controller's decision regarding Indian Patent Application No. 661/CHENP/2010. The appellant subsequently sought and was granted leave to withdraw the appeal.
Signal Pharmaceuticals v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office
Signal Pharmaceuticals appealed an order from the Deputy Controller of Patents refusing to grant a patent for its mTOR kinase inhibitors. The appellant argued that the refusal was based on a non-speaking order, failing to properly appreciate evidence and ignore the inventive step and therapeutic efficacy of the compound. The High Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Sfp Sons India Private Limited v.Mr. Jitender Singh
The Madras High Court addressed a suit filed by Sfp Sons India Private Limited concerning the alleged infringement and passing off of its registered trademark 'JASS' by Mr. Jitender Singh, trading as M/s. Sri Vidhiya Agencies. The court found that the defendant was liable for infringing the plaintiff's rights through the use of deceptively similar marks like 'JAAS'. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further misuse and directed the payment of suit costs to the plaintiff.
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents
The Appellant, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., filed an appeal challenging the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 201617008869 by the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The High Court issued notice and set a date for re-notification to hear the matter.
Alcon Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Alcon Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse the grant of its Indian Patent Application No. 201914027377. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions, setting a date for re-notification.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.OROPE Germany GmbH, Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling, the Mannheim Local Division addressed the joint handling of claims in the case involving Panasonic Holdings Corporation and OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. The court decided to consolidate the infringement claim with the counterclaim for patent revocation and FRAND licensing. This decision emphasizes judicial efficiency by ensuring that both the validity and infringement aspects are judged under a single, unified interpretation by the same panel.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Ericsson successfully sought leave to amend its preliminary injunction application in the UPC, specifically adjusting the scope of liability concerning Arvato's role as a service intermediary. The Court granted this amendment, allowing Ericsson to proceed with direct infringement claims against ASUSTek and Digital River Ireland while limiting Arvato's liability under Article 62(1) UPCA. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex supply chain litigation by allowing claimants to refine their legal theories based on factual developments.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. 202117035647 by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court allowed exemption and set notice, granting both parties time to file their respective written synopses or rejoinders.
i-mop GmbH v.ARCORA International GmbH
In this UPC case, i-mop GmbH successfully obtained a default judgment against ARCORA International GmbH regarding the infringement of its floor cleaning device patent (EP 3 760 094). The court found that ARCORA's product infringed the patent claims and granted preliminary relief, including damages and an injunction. Although the case was ultimately concluded due to partial withdrawal by i-mop, the ruling serves as a significant precedent regarding default judgments in UPC infringement proceedings.
Sumitomo Shi FW Energia Oy v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
The appellant challenged the refusal order by the Deputy Controller of Patents, which rejected its patent application for a circulating fluidized bed boiler due to lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that their improvisation introduced significant advantages over prior art, such as reduced heat exchanges and improved efficiency. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed an application by Advanced Bionics to change the proceedings language from German to English, matching the patent's language. The court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while factors like industry standard language (English) and the patent language are considered, they do not override considerations such as parties' domicile and existing procedural arrangements. This case reinforces the UPC's discretionary approach to language changes, requiring a careful balancing of interests rather than relying solely on technical or commercial convenience.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Micor Labs Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited sought the rectification of Micor Labs Limited's trademark 'DOLOBENE', arguing it was deceptively similar to their mark 'DOLOBAN'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay and acquiescence. The court found that Mankind had lost its right to claim prior user due to the significant lapse between Micor Labs' registration date and the filing of the rectification application.
Shanmugavadivel v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by Shanmugavadivel against an order passed by The Registrar of Trade Marks. The core issue was that the Registrar dismissed the appellant's review petition without providing a hearing, despite a scheduled date being fixed. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Registry for fresh consideration on merits after ensuring a fair opportunity to be heard.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This Düsseldorf Local Court decision addressed a request from Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. for court-provided simultaneous interpretation during oral proceedings, despite having English proficiency. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that since English was an available procedural language and the claimant deliberately chose German, they must bear the costs of their own interpreter. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must utilize available procedural options when seeking to participate in hearings.
S.Sudhakar v.K.Priya
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed for the rectification of the Trademarks Register, directing the cancellation of K. Priya's 'UDAYA MASALA' mark. The court relied on a prior final judgment in an infringement suit which had already established that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered marks ('UDHAIYAM'). This decision reinforces the principle that successful infringement litigation can serve as a basis for seeking cancellation of confusingly similar trademarks.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Roche Diabetes Care GmbH and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. addressed a request for an extension of time to file a rejoinder in revocation proceedings. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while flexibility is key in UPC procedure, extensions must be based on objective impossibility or extreme difficulty. This ruling reinforces the strict standard required for procedural relief, particularly when parties introduce new evidence.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Hewlett-Packard's request for information disclosure against Lama France. HP sought details on third parties and import invoices related to alleged infringing cartridges. The court found that such requests are admissible throughout the litigation process if necessary for instruction. This decision allows HP to gather crucial evidence regarding the supply chain without immediately establishing infringement, setting a precedent for discovery-like procedures in UPC cases.
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. v.Controller Of Patents
Fibrocell Technologies Inc. appealed an impugned order dated February 19, 2019, passed by the Controller of Patents which denied its application (No. 10246/DELNP/2012). The appellant argued that the denial was based on new grounds (lack of enablement) and non-speaking reasons, violating natural justice.
Visakha Chemicals v.Bindal Food Products
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Visakha Chemicals against Bindal Food Products for trademark infringement and passing off related to Ayurvedic products. The Plaintiff successfully demonstrated prior usage and established significant goodwill for their trademarks 'ROCHAK' and 'AM PACHAN,' as well as the associated trade dress/packaging, which were deceptively copied by the Defendant. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from using these marks and awarded nominal damages.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.
This UPC decision addresses a request for public access to case files by a third party (DMV industrijski kontrolni sistemi d.o.o.). The court analyzed the balance between the applicant's interest in obtaining documents and the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing infringement proceedings. Ultimately, the court denied the access request, emphasizing that procedural fairness and confidentiality must prevail over speculative or indirect interests.
Rhodia Operations v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Rhodia Operations appealed a rejection order regarding its patent application for a polyamide material with high fluid barrier properties. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step, citing prior art D5 and D6. The court examined the teachings of both prior arts and concluded that combining them would lead to an obvious invention.
Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Bombay High Court addressed a petition filed by Indi Pharma Pvt Ltd seeking the restoration and renewal of its trademark 'VOMISET' (No. 711095). The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the trademark within three weeks, allowing the petitioner to subsequently apply for renewal. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that parties should pursue departmental remedies based on established legal precedents, rather than resorting to litigation against the Registrar.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In a procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Panel rejected the Defendants' requests to compel the European Commission to provide details on ongoing antitrust investigations against the Claimant. The Court determined that since both parties confirmed the EC procedure was still in a preliminary fact-gathering stage without a formal investigation, there was no relevant new information to be obtained at this time. This decision underscores the court's focus on the core patent litigation while managing procedural requests for external regulatory data.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs which rejected the grant of a patent application (No. 6134/DELNP/2015). The rejection was based on the alleged lack of inventive constructional features and failure to meet novelty and inventive step criteria. The court issued notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
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.