IP Cases — 2024
1,677 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 56 · 1,677 total
Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of M/S Vijay Auto Sales v.Ajay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.
The Delhi High Court referred a trademark dispute between Vijay Baweja and Ajay Baweja to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The petitioner sought rectification of their 'AIRGOLD' trademark and cancellation of the respondent's similar mark, 'AIR GOLD (DEVICE)', both registered in Class 12. This move indicates the court is encouraging parties to resolve complex IP conflicts through alternative dispute resolution before proceeding with a full trial.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals appealed a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding its application for provisional measures against Amgen entities. The appeal sought an expedited hearing process under UPC Rules of Procedure. However, the Court of Appeal ultimately rejected the request for expedition, finding that Alexion's arguments were insufficient to outweigh the respondents' interests in maintaining standard procedural timelines. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain accelerated proceedings within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Ashokbhai Manjibhai Sankharava trading as M/s. Unolex Aquatech v.M/S. Trishul Pump
The appeals challenged orders passed by the Commercial Court rejecting applications seeking exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff had filed four suits for patent infringement (No. 388576) but failed to demonstrate a genuine need for urgent interim relief.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd & Ors.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and others, asserting that three of its Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) were being infringed by the Defendants' mobile phones. After extensive hearings regarding infringement, validity, essentiality, and FRAND compliance, the parties reached a settlement agreement.
Netgear Inc. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This UPC appeal addressed a procedural dispute concerning the deadline for a defendant to respond when a claimant expands their lawsuit by adding a new patent. The court emphasized the fundamental principle of due process, holding that defendants must receive equivalent defense opportunities as if a completely new claim had been filed. By overturning the lower court's determination of the start date, the UPC ensured procedural fairness and set a clear, extended deadline for the defendant.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT s.r.o., Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna International France, SARL
In this provisional measures case concerning an automotive motor patent (EP 3 320 604 B1), the UPC Local Division granted a preliminary injunction to Valeo Electrification against Magna PT and its affiliates. The injunction was conditional, allowing the Defendants to continue supplying specific models to their customer BMW if they provided a security deposit of €500,000. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach in balancing patent holder rights with the operational needs of defendants facing existing supply chain commitments.
Insulet Corporation v.A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Insulet Corporation sought provisional measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics regarding the infringement of its insulin patch pump patent (EP 4201327). The Court dismissed Insulet's application, finding that the necessary cumulative evidence—including a sufficient degree of certainty regarding validity and imminent infringement—was not met. This decision underscores the high procedural bar required to obtain interim relief in UPC proceedings, particularly when faced with multiple validity challenges.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Scandit AG seeking permission to submit a reply brief in an ongoing infringement appeal against Hand Held Products, Inc. The court ultimately denied the request, reinforcing strict adherence to the rules governing written submissions in the appellate phase. The ruling underscores the importance of 'front-loaded' arguments and efficiency in UPC proceedings, preventing parties from introducing new substantive points late in the process.
M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath v.M/s.Hotel Swagath, Dhanturi Group of Hotels Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed a Transfer Original Petition filed by M/s.Sailaksh Trading as Hotel Grand Swagath against M/s.Hotel Swagath and the Registrar of Trade Marks. The petition sought to remove or cancel the trademark 'HOTEL SWAGATH' (Device) registered in Class-43. The court noted that the proprietors of the petitioner hotel had passed away, leading to the withdrawal of a related infringement suit by the first respondent. Consequently, the Transfer Original Petition was dismissed as abated, though it can be revived by legal heirs.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers (P) Ltd. v.News Tamil 24 x 7 / S Plus Media Ltd.
Ananda Vikatan Publishers challenged an earlier dismissal order by the Commercial Division regarding its request for permanent injunctions against News Tamil 24 x 7 and S Plus Media Ltd. The core dispute involved allegations of passing off a mark ('KAZHUGU') and copyright infringement related to 'MISTER KAZHUGU'. The Madras High Court, while noting that the original order failed to compare the competing marks adequately, opted for a consent order.
Comviva Technologies Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents & Design
Comviva Technologies Limited appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to refuse grant for its patent application concerning methods and devices for authenticating electronic payment cards using an electronic token. The Controller had rejected the application, citing that the claims fell under Section 3(k) as being a 'business method' or 'computer programme per se'. However, the Delhi High Court overturned this refusal, holding that the invention addresses a technical problem—enhancing security in contactless payments—rather than merely automating a business process. The court affirmed that the technical contribution makes the subject matter patentable.
Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S B.R. Industries
The Meghalaya High Court admitted the appeal filed by Megha Cashew Pvt. Ltd. against an earlier order concerning alleged trademark infringement and costs. The appellant primarily sought reconsideration regarding the quantum of costs imposed. The court allowed the matter to proceed for further hearing, provided the appellant deposits Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within one week.
Sanjeev Gupta v.Aman Gupta Trading As M/S Delhi Electricals Trading Company & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple petitions concerning trademark disputes between family members. The cases involved rectification requests challenging the registration of marks like 'USHA' and a suit seeking injunction against alleged infringement using the mark 'ANUSHA'. Given the familial nature of the dispute, the court opted not to proceed with immediate litigation. Instead, the parties were referred to Pre-Institution Mediation to explore an amicable resolution. This order highlights the judiciary's preference for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in complex family IP disputes.
Unnamed Claimant v.NEC Corporation
This UPC CFI decision addressed procedural disputes in an infringement case involving HEVC standards. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant's failure to upload the correct standard version alongside the Statement of Claim violated Rule 13.2, justifying a request for an extension of their defense deadline. The Court upheld this principle, granting the extension while rejecting other claims by the Claimant regarding deadlines and technical references.
M/S Shree Hari Industries (Hari Oil Mill) v.Registrar Of Copyrights And Anr
M/S Shree Hari Industries filed proceedings against the Registrar of Copyrights, alleging that certain copyright grants were improperly issued. The petitioner contended that these grants failed to properly consider their pre-existing registered trademarks. During the hearing on May 29, 2024, the court accepted trademark search certificates and noted the petitioner's request for a stay on the use of the disputed marks. The matter was listed for further consideration.
Rupa Gujral & Ors. v.Raghav Jaggi
Rupa Gujral and others filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking removal of an impugned trademark (No. 3777931) related to 'Original Dal Makhani & Butter Chicken'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondent, Raghav Jaggi, requiring him to file a reply within six weeks. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on July 25, 2024.
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 decision from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a motion for disclosure of confidential licensing agreements in an SEP dispute involving Panasonic and Xiaomi entities. The court ruled that, given the necessity to assess compliance with EU competition law (FRAND), the claimant must submit these contracts. This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial oversight can override contractual confidentiality clauses when fundamental legal requirements, such as those governing SEPs, are at stake.
Kao Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kao Corporation appealed a refusal order issued by the Controller of Patents for its patent application titled "Hair Dyeing Or Bleaching Method". The appeal was based on procedural infirmities, including the failure to raise objections under Section 3(a) in the hearing notice and the erroneous recording regarding industrial applicability. The Court found merit in these submissions and remanded the matter back to the Controller for fresh consideration.
Vimal Agro Products P. Ltd. v.Capital Foods P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vimal Agro Products challenging the 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY' trademark held by Capital Foods. While acknowledging that the core issue—whether the mark is descriptive or generic—is pending before a Division Bench, the court declined to grant an immediate stay on the registration. Instead, the Court prioritized determining its own territorial jurisdiction over the matter, setting up further hearings to resolve this critical legal question.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for discovery/document production (Verfahrensanordnung) in an infringement case involving 10x Genomics and Vizgen regarding EP4108782. The court ordered the exchange of numerous documents, including deposition transcripts from both sides, which originated from parallel US litigation. A key aspect of the ruling is the imposition of strict confidentiality protocols ('Outside Attorneys’ Eyes Only') on all disclosed materials to protect sensitive business information.
Network System Technologies LLC. v.Volkswagen AG
In a procedural ruling concerning an appeal against a security for costs decision, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Volkswagen AG's request to expedite the proceedings. The court found that the arguments presented were too vague and lacked sufficient substantiation to justify shortening any deadlines under R.9.3(b). This order highlights the strict requirements parties must meet when seeking procedural acceleration within the UPC framework.
Falcon Autotech Private Limited v.Kengic Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging infringement of its patented 'Integrated Pre-Sortation System' (Patent No. IN410846). The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to protect its statutory rights against the defendant, who was allegedly manufacturing and selling infringing sorter machines in India without proper licenses.
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG v.pharma-aktiva GmbH
G. Pohl-Boskamp GmbH & C. KG successfully obtained provisional measures against multiple defendants, including pharma-aktiva GmbH and various Aldi/Hofer group entities, regarding the alleged infringement of EP 1 993 363 B1. The patent covers a specific composition used to combat ectoparasites. The court issued an immediate injunction prohibiting the manufacture and sale of the infringing product in Germany and Austria, alongside imposing significant penalty payments (Zwangsgeld). This decision highlights the broad reach of UPC provisional measures against large retail groups.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
This UPC appeal case centered on procedural disputes regarding the scope of arguments and the admissibility of new evidence in a patent infringement/validity matter concerning vacuum cleaner technology. Dyson sought to have certain grounds for invalidity disregarded by the Board of Appeal, while SharkNinja attempted to introduce late-filed US documents (FBD 27 and FBD 28) as supporting evidence. The Board ultimately rejected Dyson's procedural request but dismissed SharkNinja's attempts to introduce new material, emphasizing strict adherence to established appeal procedures.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application by Fujifilm Corporation seeking to overturn a previous decision that denied them permission for a further written submission. The dispute centered on the right of prior use defense raised by Kodak entities. The UPC Panel dismissed the request, emphasizing that strict adherence to procedural timelines is crucial in complex patent litigation. This ruling reinforces the principle that parties must manage their filing deadlines carefully to avoid unnecessary delays in proceedings.
M/S.Wensar Weighing Scales Limited v.The Tintometer Limited
The Madras High Court dismissed the Transfer Original Petition filed by M/S. Wensar Weighing Scales Limited against The Tintometer Limited. The petition sought the removal and expungement of two trademark registrations ('Tintometer') based on grounds including wrongful registration and non-use. However, due to the petitioner's counsel failing to provide instructions, the court dismissed the entire petition for default.
Dcm Shriram Limited v.Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited
Dcm Shriram Limited successfully secured an interim injunction against Kohinoor Seed Fields India Private Limited in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, given Dcm Shriram's established brand presence and statutory protection for its 'Shriram Super 303' mark. This crucial order temporarily prevents the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like '303' in relation to wheat seeds, protecting the plaintiff's market reputation during the critical Rabi cropping season.
Immunas Pharma, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Immunas Pharma appealed the rejection of its patent application for an antibody capable of binding to A-beta oligomers. The rejection was based on the grounds that the antibody was a natural nonliving substance and thus not patentable under Section 3(c) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court set aside the rejection order.
Motwane Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks / Union of India
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Motwane Private Limited, holding that the petitioner's right to renew its trademarks was not extinguished despite a significant delay. The court emphasized that since the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, any automatic rejection based on time limits is invalid. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural fairness and due process must be followed by the Registry before removing marks from the register.
Agro Innovation International v.The Controller Of Patents
Agro Innovation International filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' decision dated 23.02.2024, which had rejected their patent application no. 202017025064. The court allowed applications for exemption and condoned a delay of eight days in filing the appeal, subsequently issuing notice to the respondent.
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.