IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 56 · 1,677 total
Anil Kumar Gera Trading As Alka Food Industries v.Mr Ramesh Chander Trading As Anil Food Industries
This Delhi High Court order addressed petitions challenging two existing copyright registrations held by M/s Anil Food Industries. The petitioner, Alka Food Industries, alleged that these registrations for artistic labels were obtained improperly and in contravention of statutory rules. The core legal issue revolved around whether the Respondent complied with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice to all interested parties during the registration process. The Court directed that the impugned copyrights be treated as revoked/cancelled, while simultaneously reviving the original applications. This allows the Petitioner a fresh opportunity to file an opposition, ensuring the matter is re-decided in accordance with law.
Mukesh Kumar Vidyarthi v.Controller Of Patents New Delhi & Anr.
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting the appellant's patent application for 'Charge Recirculation Air Intake Main Ford (CRAIM)' on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court, after considering submissions from both parties and an Assistant Controller, allowed the appeal.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and associated entities (including Abbott Logistics B.V., Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., etc.)
In a procedural order concerning EP 4 026 488, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf decided to proceed with a joint hearing of the infringement action brought by DexCom against Abbott and its subsidiaries, alongside the counterclaim for revocation. This decision prioritizes efficiency, ensuring that both validity and infringement are assessed under a single, uniform interpretation by the same judicial panel. The court also mandated the allocation of a technically qualified judge (TQJ) to manage the case effectively.
Everest Food Products Private Limited v.Everest Beverages And Food Industries & Anr.
This appeal before the Delhi High Court challenges an earlier order that set aside an opposition filed by Everest Food Products against a Trademark Application. The appellant argued that crucial documents were misplaced or not supplied to them, hindering their ability to present a full case regarding prior use and rights. While the court did not rule on the merits of the trademark dispute, it granted an adjournment to allow further submissions and document exchange.
Makemytrip (India) Private Limited v.Tickmytrip Services Private Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed Original Petitions filed by Makemytrip seeking the rectification and cancellation of Tickmytrip's registered trademarks (Nos. 2801898 & 2801899). The court accepted a written undertaking from Tickmytrip stating that they do not intend to renew these trademark registrations once their current term expires on September 2, 2024. Since the marks will lapse, the court found no necessity for further orders regarding cancellation.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In a procedural ruling, NanoString Technologies Europe Limited successfully opposed President and Fellows of Harvard College's attempt to introduce late-stage written submissions and expert reports in a revocation action concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court upheld the principle of 'front-loaded character' inherent in UPC proceedings. This decision reinforces the requirement for parties to present their full case early, preventing procedural delays and ensuring efficient judicial process.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC procedural order addressed a request for intervention filed by Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in an interim injunction case between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. The Court ultimately rejected the intervention, ruling that Menarini's interest was merely hypothetical and could be sufficiently defended in parallel proceedings before the Local Division Milan. This decision reinforces the strict procedural requirements for third-party intervention in fast-moving provisional measures cases.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited against Zentech Pharmaceuticals And Anr. The court found a prima facie case for infringement and passing off, noting that the defendant adopted a phonetically similar trademark (ZEEDUX) and copied the entire trade dress and color scheme of the plaintiff's well-known brand (ZEDEX). This order temporarily restrains the defendants from manufacturing or using the infringing product while the main suit proceeds.
Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd v.Xpert Tricks Softwares & Ors.
This Delhi High Court order addresses an ongoing suit filed by Busy Infotech Pvt Ltd against various defendants for copyright infringement and trademark passing off related to its 'BUSY Software.' The court noted that previous interim injunctions were in place, and several pro-forma defendants had been discharged after providing undertakings. On December 8, 2023, the court directed the Plaintiff to file an updated memo of parties within one week before listing the matter again.
Mallcom (India) Limited v.Shanti Udyog Weldsafe Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Mallcom (India) Limited, protecting its registered trademark 'TIGER' used for safety shoes. The court found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar and violated both statutory and common law rights. While restraining further use, the defendants were allowed a grace period to deplete their existing stock and were ordered to take down the infringing website.
Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd v.Voiceage Evs Llc
The petitioners sought the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN405869 before the Delhi High Court. The court granted notice and allowed various interim applications, including directions for respondents to file prosecution records and granting extensions of time for both parties.
Curio Bioscience, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application by Curio Bioscience to grant suspensive effect to a prior Court of First Instance order requiring them to provide security for legal costs. The court ruled against Curio, emphasizing that the burden lies squarely on the applicant to prove 'extreme urgency' under Rule 223 RoP. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for obtaining temporary relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when challenging interim measures.
Gautam Bhatia v.Vinayak Enterprises
Gautam Bhatia filed an application seeking permission to amend the claims of his Indian Patent No.410993, which relates to a method for preparing an adhesive. The plaintiff sought to narrow the scope of the process and product claims by defining the ratio of modified starch to various powders within a specific range (1:1 to 1:5). Despite the defendant opposing the amendment, the court allowed it, finding that the proposed changes were clarificatory, narrowing the scope, and supported by the original complete specification.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S
Headwater Research LLC initiated an infringement action against Samsung Electronics entities before the UPC. This preliminary order addresses procedural matters, specifically concerning the production of evidence (RoP190). The case remains in the early stages of litigation as the court manages the discovery process.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril GmbH addressed requests for an in-person hearing and state-provided simultaneous interpretation. The claimant ultimately withdrew these demands, agreeing instead to a video conference with privately hired interpreters. The court closed the workstream, confirming that private arrangements are permissible under specific rules.
The State Of Jharkhand v.Rohit Kumar Gupta & Anr.
The Jharkhand High Court, exercising Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction, disposed of multiple Letters Patent Appeals (L.P.A.) on January 31, 2024. The judgment confirmed the disposition of these appeals based on the precedent established in L.P.A. No. 203 of 2022 and other analogous cases. This ruling addresses various disputes arising under patent law within the state.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In this UPC decision concerning EP3024163, the court addressed a request for evidence production and confidentiality. While the main application was dismissed, the court consolidated and finalized the existing provisional confidentiality order. This final ruling sets strict boundaries on who can view confidential information, particularly related to FRAND licensing terms, reinforcing the importance of procedural safeguards in complex patent litigation.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung), the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf decided to consolidate the proceedings between Grundfos Holding A/S and Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. The court ruled that it would jointly examine both the infringement claim brought by Grundfos and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Hefei Xinhu. This decision aims to enhance procedural efficiency, ensuring a unified legal interpretation across both claims.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Shri Ram Polymers & Anr
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited filed an opposition against the trademark registration of 'Shri New Prakash Flex' by Shri Ram Polymers & Anr, arguing that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to their existing registered marks ('Prakash', 'Prakash Gold'). The Delhi High Court has initiated the proceedings, issuing notice and setting timelines for both parties to file detailed written submissions. This case will determine whether the new registration infringes upon the petitioner's established brand rights.
United Foods Public Company Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed United Foods Public Company Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its word mark 'YOYO'. The Registry had cited striking similarity to several existing marks. Recognizing that the appellant was willing to modify the application, the court remanded the matter back to the Respondent. The Appellant is now directed to amend the application into a label mark within eight weeks, allowing the Registrar to re-examine the modified mark.
Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC appealed a refusal by the Assistant Controller of Patents to grant a patent titled 'Reversible 2-Dimensional Pre-/Post-Filtering for Lapped Biorthogonal Transform'. The refusal was based on Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court ultimately held that the invention provided tangible benefits beyond ordinary computing functionality and was therefore patentable.
Rajesh Chugh Kart Amir Chand And Sons Huf & Anr. v.Mr Nazim Khan Proprietor Partner Nazim S Kathi Roll & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an interim application filed by the defendant, Mr. Nazim Khan, seeking court approval for a proposed trademark design. The Court found that despite some adherence to previous consent terms regarding font size and prominence, the new design still spotlighted 'NAZIM'S' on a standalone basis, violating the spirit of the earlier agreement. Consequently, the application was rejected, reinforcing the importance of strict compliance with court-mandated usage restrictions during litigation.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Audi AG
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses preliminary objections and requests under Rule 361 RoP in a complex infringement case involving NST and Audi. The court established key procedural boundaries, ruling that R.361 challenges are not suitable for full evidentiary battles. Crucially, the panel affirmed that an initial claim detailing one infringing example while listing others does not automatically fail the 'manifestly bound to fail' test. This decision reinforces the flexibility of UPC procedure while maintaining standards for early case filtering.
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
F.Hoffmann-La Roche Ag appealed an order rejecting its patent application for a subcutaneous anti-HER2 antibody formulation. The rejection was based on the product lacking inventive step and being known in the market. The court allowed the appeal, noting that the original decision failed to address 11 out of 12 claims independently.
Swasth Digital Health Foundation v.Trade Marks Registry
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by Swasth Digital Health Foundation against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal to register its composite mark. The court held that the mark, taken as a whole, possesses sufficient distinctiveness for registration. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Registrar exceeded his statutory authority by restricting the use of national flag colors in the device, emphasizing that an owner has the freedom to choose their color scheme unless explicitly restricted by law.
Saera Electric Auto Limited v.Malak Techno Private Limited
Saera Electric Auto Limited successfully resolved its trademark infringement suit against Malak Techno Private Limited through mediation. The parties entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement, which the Delhi High Court subsequently decreed. Under the terms, Malak Techno agreed to cease all use of the impugned mark 'MAYUR' and any deceptively similar variations, acknowledge Saera as the sole owner of the 'MAYURI' trademarks and copyright in its logo, and pay damages totaling Rs. 2,50,000/-.
Curio Bioscience Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 697 391, the UPC Court of Appeal granted Curio Bioscience's request to change the court language from German to English. The decision emphasized that fairness is paramount when considering such changes, particularly weighing the position of the defendant (10x Genomics). This case highlights the practical application of procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust proceedings based on linguistic and operational needs.
HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P v.LAMA FRANCE
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and nullity action concerning compatible printer cartridges. The court affirmed the scope of direct infringement under Article 25 AJUB, ruling that prior knowledge by the defendant is not a prerequisite for establishing infringement. While the claimant sought broad remedies including injunctions and damages, the final judgment focused on compelling information disclosure to facilitate damage calculation, while rejecting provisional payment requests.
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
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division of Mannheim addressed Panasonic Holdings Corporation's request for confidentiality protection concerning sensitive information related to its patent licensing agreements with third parties. The court partially granted this request, establishing strict rules governing who can access and how the confidential documents may be used within the proceedings. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to protecting commercially sensitive data during litigation, balancing transparency requirements with proprietary interests.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
This decision from the Mannheim Local Court addresses a challenge by AYLO PREMIUM LTD against a confidentiality order established under UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 262A VerfO). The dispute centered on whether three individuals named by the claimants should be excluded from accessing confidential information related to the patent infringement case. The court upheld the original order, finding that the respondent did not provide sufficient justification to restrict access, thereby reinforcing the principle of unrestricted access to the core dispute material.
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.