IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 102 of 189 · 5,670 total
Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in favor of Master Capital Services Limited regarding the misuse of its 'Master Trust' trademark. The court recognized that unidentified individuals were using the brand name on messaging platforms like WhatsApp for fraudulent investment schemes. Consequently, the court issued directions to block specific WhatsApp accounts and permanently freeze bank accounts linked to the alleged infringers, safeguarding the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Malti Gupta v.Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Malti Gupta against Sunil Kumar Seth & Anr. The court found a prima facie case existed regarding the infringement of the registered wordmark 'ROJGAR RESULT' and associated device mark. The defendants were immediately restrained from using the plaintiff's trademark on their competing websites, www.sarkariexam.com and www.sarkariresult.com, and were ordered to delete all infringing content.
Kickstarter, Pbc v.Kickstarter Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim permanent injunction in favor of Kickstarter, Pbc, against Kickstarter Private Limited. The court found a prima facie case for infringement, noting that the defendant obtained registration of the identical mark 'KICKSTARTER' potentially in a dishonest manner. Given the irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the likelihood of market confusion, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the disputed trademark across all platforms.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, in its entirety for all designated UPC contracting member states. The claimant alleged lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1 owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The claimant argued lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, primarily based on prior art WO 99/18010. The Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus Institute asks the PTAB Director to overturn the institution of an IPR brought by Samsung, arguing that all challenged patents share the same 802.11ax Wi‑Fi technology and therefore do not meet the “diverse range of subject matter” standard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The PTAB denied Wilus’s request for leave to address recent Director Review decisions and submit additional evidence in five IPRs involving Samsung. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-01043, leaving the patent owner’s claims intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung submits an authorized response opposing Wilus’s request for director review, arguing the examiner erred materially and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The IPR remains instituted pending the Board’s decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requested permission to address recent PTAB director‑review decisions and submit new evidence for five IPRs against Samsung. The Director denied the request, leaving the IPRs proceeding without the proposed extensions or additional evidence.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus asks the PTAB Director to overturn the Board’s decision to institute an IPR against its Wi‑Fi patents, arguing that the patents are not a diverse range of subject matter. The petition challenges the discretionary denial rationale used by the Board.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics petitions to invalidate ten claims of Wilus Institute’s Wi‑Fi patent, asserting obviousness over five prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters, backoff timers, and MU transmission techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of Wilus Institute’s ’035 Wi‑Fi patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references covering EDCA parameters and UL‑MU transmissions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung Electronics successfully secured the institution of an IPR against Wilus Institute's patent, challenging claims related to OFDMA scheduling and parameter switching.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus regarding a wireless communication patent, challenging claims 1-10 based on obviousness. The Board found sufficient evidence that Samsung could prevail.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit against Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited regarding the manufacture and sale of an 'impugned drug'. The court addressed various interlocutory applications related to filing documents and pre-institution mediation. In relation to the main suit, the defendants stated they had a license to manufacture but not sell in India, while the plaintiff argued that export of infringing products also constitutes infringement.
M/S Mishu Enterprises v.M/S Nakshatra 13
The plaintiff, M/S Mishu Enterprises, owns and uses the distinctive mark 'MACHHMANI' for selling sea stones and related jewellery. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant, M/S Nakshatra 13, alleging unauthorized use of the same mark to deceive the public. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting permanent injunctions.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
MKU LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR. VAIBHAV GUPTA v.ASHISH KANSAL & ANR.
The petitioner filed petitions seeking revocation of two patents (No. 332770 and No. 332684) related to protective ballistic helmets under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court issued notice to all respondents and set dates for further proceedings.
BPTP Limited v.Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of BPTP Limited against Confido Landbase Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the defendants were unauthorizedly using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BPTP' to promote a non-existent project, causing potential market confusion and irreparable harm. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from advertising or dealing in services under the disputed marks and directed to immediately take down all infringing online content.
Mankind Agritech Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Agritech Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of registration for its trademark application no. 5617624 in Class 1. The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order, setting out the timeline and requirements for both parties to proceed with the appeal. This interim step allows the appellant to challenge the Registrar's decision regarding the trademark refusal.
More Retail Private Limited v.Begud Beverages Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by More Retail Private Limited seeking the cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by Begud Beverages Private Limited. This decision was reached following a settlement agreement between the parties, which stipulated the cancellation as part of the compromise of the underlying commercial suit. The court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed with the revocation.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills v.Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in a rectification petition filed by Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice And Oil Mills. The petitioner sought the removal of the registered trademark 'DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND' (Registration No. 5574981) from the Trade Marks Register, which was held by respondent no.2. The court accepted notice on behalf of one respondent and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter for further hearing.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, and Advanced Bionics Sarl
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1. The parties reached a settlement and jointly declared they had reached a comparison. The plaintiff requested permission to withdraw the action, which the defendants consented to, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and set the value in dispute at EUR 6,000,000.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Europe Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an action. NanoString had brought a revocation action against Harvard's European Patent, which was revoked by the Court of First Instance. After Harvard appealed and NanoString subsequently withdrew the action, Harvard sought reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal held that the action was withdrawn before the closure of the interim procedure rather than the written procedure, entitling Harvard to only 40% reimbursement.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This case before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned parallel revocation and infringement proceedings regarding European patent EP4201327 (unitary effect EP4201327C0) owned by Insulet Corporation, relating to fluid delivery devices for insulin pumps. EOFLOW sought revocation of the patent for lack of novelty and inventive step, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement based on EOFLOW's EOPatch/GlucoMen Day Pump product. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, and issued a decision by default against EOFLOW on the infringement counterclaim due to its failure to file a Reply, ordering injunctive relief, information disclosure, product recall, and damages with penalty payments.
Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG v.ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection dated February 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 3 083 107. The respondent sought to set aside the order, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of patent infringement and had not proven a risk of evidence destruction. The court rejected all of the respondent's arguments, confirmed the original order, and ordered the respondent to bear the costs of the review proceedings.
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.