IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 52 of 56 · 1,677 total
Nihon Onkyo Engineering Co. Ltd. v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the rejection of its patent application based on objections under Section 3(k) and Section 59 of the Patents Act. The court found that the Controller's order was not adequately reasoned and failed to consider the inventor's submissions regarding both sections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Regenesance B.V. v.Union of India
Regenesance B.V. challenged the Patent Office's order that deemed its patent application abandoned because it failed to reply to the First Examination Report (FER) within the stipulated time. The petitioner argued that the timeline should not be treated as inflexible, especially when procedural delays are common in the patent office process. The Madras High Court agreed, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must promote and preserve scientific temper, allowing for a reasonable view of the matter.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC decision addressed an application by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy seeking leave to reduce the damages claimed in an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation. The court ruled that limiting a claim, such as reducing the monetary value of damages, falls under Rule 263(3) and must be granted if properly explained. This reinforces the principle that procedural efficiency allows for necessary adjustments to claims during litigation, provided they are adequately justified.
Monsnto Technology Llc v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
Monsnto Technology Llc appealed the Patent Controller's order rejecting its patent application for 'Chloroplast Transit Peptides'. The appellant argued that the rejection was based on incomplete consideration of claims and citation of subsequent prior art. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Volkswagen/Audi and Texas Instruments against Network System Technologies' infringement action concerning EP 1 875 683 B1. The Court largely rejected jurisdictional challenges, allowing the case to proceed. However, it significantly narrowed the scope of alleged infringement, focusing primarily on the TI DRA79x SoC, while deferring complex issues like UK damages to the main proceedings. This ruling signals a careful application of procedural efficiency within the UPC framework.
R Indira Devi v.G Satyaki
The appeal challenged a trial court judgment regarding copyright infringement and passing off concerning literary works. The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an assignment letter from his father, while the defendant contested the claims. The High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Mahesh Gupta v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mahesh Gupta appealed the refusal of his patent application for a 'Portable Vehicle Management System' by the Assistant Controller. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step, citing various prior art documents (D4 and D5). The High Court upheld the rejection, finding that the features were predictable applications of existing technology.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural case before the UPC Court of Appeal, 10x Genomics appealed an order from the CFI regarding provisional measures against Curio Bioscience. After requesting withdrawal and receiving consent from Curio, the Court granted the request. The ruling clarifies that even when an appeal is withdrawn by mutual agreement, the withdrawing party (10x) must bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, setting a clear precedent for cost allocation in UPC appellate practice.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.Rpd Workstations Private Limited
Lenovo successfully challenged the registration of the mark 'THINBOOK' belonging to Rpd Workstations Private Limited in the Madras High Court. Lenovo, asserting its status as the originator and exclusive proprietor of the 'THINK Family of Marks,' demonstrated that the impugned mark was deceptively and phonetically similar to its established brand. The court ruled in favor of Lenovo, directing the cancellation and removal of the infringing trademark from the Register, thereby protecting Lenovo's goodwill and reputation in the market.
Varun Chopra & Anr. v.Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Varun Chopra against Shyam Sunder Chopra Sons Huf. The court allowed the main suit to proceed after resolving jurisdictional issues and granting various procedural exemptions, including those related to document filing and advance service. Crucially, the court referred the dispute to mediation, encouraging the parties to explore an amicable settlement despite the clear allegations of passing off and trademark infringement.
Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues arising from an appeal challenging provisional measures against Sumi Agro Limited. The core dispute involved the alleged infringement by Syngenta using different versions of a product named 'Kagura' (2023 vs 2024). The court ultimately allowed Syngenta to introduce new evidence detailing the characteristics and purchase of the 2024 product, finding that the late submission was justified. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in allowing relevant factual developments during appeal proceedings.
Temple University Of The Commonwealth System of Higher Education v.The Controller Of Patents
Temple University Of The Commonwealth appealed against the Controller of Patents' decision to reject its patent application No. 201617007895. The court initially condoned the delay in filing the appeal and subsequently listed the main appeal for further hearing.
Largan Precision Co Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court passed an order framing issues in the suit concerning the validity and enforceability of Plaintiff's Suit Patent IN 363203 against the Defendants. The court also appointed a Commissioner to record evidence and set out a tentative timeline for the trial.
Winzo Games Private Limited v.Hike Global Pte. Ltd.
WinZO Games Private Limited filed a petition seeking interim reliefs against Hike Global Pte. Ltd. alleging that the Respondents launched a competing app ('Rush') which imitated WinZO's features, misused confidential information, and utilized WinZO's proprietary match-making algorithm. The court issued an interim order directing both parties to place relevant source codes and algorithms on record for the Sole Arbitrator.
Sanofi India Limited v.Bullford Wold Limited & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of a Rectification Application filed by Sanofi India Limited, accepting its request to withdraw it. This withdrawal was based on a favorable judgment previously delivered by the Delhi High Court in a related infringement suit. The Delhi court had decreed the case, mandating that Bullford Wold cease manufacturing and selling products under the impugned trademark 'CANIFLAM' and take steps to surrender the trademark registration.
Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v.Rathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.
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 UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical procedural issue concerning the effective date of service in an appeal. The case involved Xiaomi, which sought clarification on when it was formally served with the appeal documents due to technical glitches within the Case Management System (CMS). The court found that conflicting information and CMS misconfiguration led to confusion regarding the actual delivery date. Consequently, the Court ruled that April 3, 2024, must be recognized as the correct service date, ensuring Xiaomi's right to respond by the extended deadline.
SRF Limited v.Solvay S A & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation of Patent No. IN331314, titled 'PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF HALOGENATED CARBOXYLIC ANHYDRIDES', which was granted to Respondent no. 1. The petitioner claims that the patent ought not have been allowed due to various prior art and prior use evidence.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 207 270, the Local Court Mannheim decided to split the ongoing UPC case into separate proceedings. This decision was driven by difficulties in serving process on defendants located in China and Hong Kong, which would have stalled the entire case. By separating the litigation, the court can maintain momentum against represented parties while waiting for proper service procedures to be completed internationally.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v.M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals
The Delhi High Court addressed a suit filed by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. against M/S. Orison Pharmaceuticals concerning alleged trademark infringement and passing off of marks like 'REVITAL' and 'CEROXIM'. Despite the plaintiff alleging deceptive similarity in the defendant's marks ('ORIVITAL' and 'OXIM'), both parties expressed interest in exploring a settlement. Consequently, the Court referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for resolution.
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Microsoft Technology Licensing Llc filed an appeal challenging the Patent Office's order rejecting its application titled "DISCOVERY OF SECURE NETWORK ENCLAVES". The rejection was based on grounds related to Sections 2(l)(j) and Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. The court released the matter from part-heard status and listed it for further hearing.
New Balance Athletics Inc. v.Nineplus Shoes Private Limited
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed procedural issues arising from a Local Commissioner's report detailing alleged removal of infringing goods. The Court clarified that while the Defendant was found to be using the impugned mark contrary to assurances, it dismissed adverse observations against the defendant's counsel for merely informing industry associations about the lawsuit. Crucially, the Court mandated fresh service and personal appearance by the key representative of the Defendant, ensuring due process before proceeding with coercive measures.
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
Syngenta Crop Protection Ag challenged the refusal of its patent application, which covered methods for controlling rice plant infestations using a specific compound. The initial rejection was based on the argument that these methods constituted 'methods of agriculture' and were thus unpatentable under Section 3(h) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court overturned this decision, holding that a method of treating plants is distinct from fundamental agricultural practices. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Controller for fresh examination.
Dolby International AB v.ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTek COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED, ASUS FRANCE Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for deadline extensions in an infringement case involving Dolby International AB and ASUS entities. The core issue was balancing the standard two-month response period against the need to protect confidential business secrets under R. 262A VerfO. The court found that restricting access initially constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the extension of deadlines, thereby upholding procedural fairness for the claimant.
AYLO FREESITES LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
This decision from the UPC Board of Appeal addresses procedural matters concerning an appeal filed by Aylo companies against a prior local court order. The core issue was whether the parties could unilaterally submit additional arguments under Rule 9.1. The Board firmly rejected this interpretation, clarifying that all supplementary submissions must be approved by the presiding judge in accordance with Rules 36 and 220.4 of the UPC Rules of Procedure. This ruling reinforces strict procedural control within the UPC litigation framework.
M/S Shree Vallabh Metals v.Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of M/S Shree Vallabh Metals against Pappu Farishta Sole Proprietor Of M/S Pappu Farishta, granting a permanent injunction. The court found that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off concerning the plaintiff's 'MAXFRESH' brand across various household goods categories. While dismissing an application to add another party, the court proceeded with the suit, decreeing the specific relief sought by the plaintiff regarding the use of their protected marks.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed a request by multiple defendants for security for legal costs against the US-based claimant. The Court emphasized that while protecting defendants is important, it cannot unduly restrict a claimant's right to an effective remedy. The ruling clarified that the mere fact of being non-EU based is insufficient grounds for imposing security if the claimant demonstrates financial capacity and willingness to cover adverse costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Texas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
This UPC CFI decision addresses preliminary objections raised by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against major automotive and semiconductor players regarding patent EP 1 552 399 B1. The Court partially dismissed NST's arguments concerning jurisdiction, standing, and the scope of infringing embodiments. Crucially, the court ruled that complex issues, such as damages related to the UK market or validity questions already pending elsewhere, must be addressed in the main proceedings to ensure procedural efficiency. This ruling signals a pragmatic approach by the UPC CFI, balancing the need for preliminary filtering with the goal of efficient case management.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited v.Massey Ferguson Corp.
Tractors & Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) filed a suit against Massey Ferguson Corp. (MFC) seeking declarations regarding trademark abandonment and injunctive relief concerning their respective trademarks. The original Commercial Court returned the plaint, directing TAFE to file it in the Commercial Division of the High Court, citing maintainability issues. TAFE appealed this order, arguing for the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. However, the Madras High Court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that allowing such suits in the Commercial Court could lead to forum shopping and undermine the philosophy of the Commercial Courts Act.
Retail Royalty Company And Anr v.Rohit Madan, Trading As Sita Outdoor Media
The Delhi High Court allowed an application filed by the Plaintiff, Retail Royalty Company And Anr, to amend a previous court order. The amendment corrected an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the specific description of the 'Flying Eagle Device' trademark. This procedural step ensures that the legal proceedings accurately reflect the intellectual property rights being asserted.
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.