IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 71 · 2,122 total
Astrazeneca Ab & Anr v.Ajanta Pharma Limited
This is an interim order passed by the Delhi High Court in a suit concerning alleged infringement of patents. The court settled several issues, including whether the defendants' activities infringe specific patents and the validity/restoration status of one of the patents.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG; Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH; Renault S.A.S.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, based on the patent's grant language. The court ruled in favor of the defendants (Renault), establishing that the defendant's position must prevail when balancing interests under Art. 49(5) UPCA. This reinforces the principle that while fairness is key, the claimant's initial choice and the procedural context heavily influence the outcome.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr v.M.M. Oil Traders
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited, which is suing M.M. Oil Traders for infringement. The court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from advance service and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the case. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to confiscate infringing products and inspect the defendant's accounts, signaling strong judicial support for the plaintiff's claims regarding trademark, design, and copyright infringement.
Tesla Inc. v.Tesla Power India Private Limited & Ors.
Tesla Inc. filed a suit against Tesla Power India Private Limited and others, alleging infringement of its 'TESLA' trademark and passing off in relation to battery technology marketing. The Delhi High Court formally registered the suit and allowed the parties to proceed with litigation. Crucially, during the initial hearing, the defendants provided an undertaking assuring they would not use the impugned trademarks deceptively or market EVs under the brand name, a significant development for the ongoing dispute.
Amazon.com, Inc. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a request by Amazon to impose additional confidentiality restrictions on documents within the ongoing appeal proceedings against Nokia. The core issue was whether new, stricter protection was needed beyond what had already been established by the Local Division in the main infringement case. The Board ultimately denied Amazon's request, finding that the existing court orders were sufficient and that Amazon's requests lacked necessary specificity regarding the information to be protected.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l.; Amazon EU S.à r.l.; Amazon.com, Inc.
This UPC Appeals Board decision addressed a procedural motion filed by Amazon, which sought an extension to submit written arguments regarding license agreements and expert opinions just days before the oral hearing. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that the established procedure of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) prioritizes efficiency and fairness. The ruling reinforces the strict adherence to the timeline of the appellate process, ensuring both parties have equal opportunity to present their case during the scheduled hearings.
Mr.A.Ruthramoorthy, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work; Mr.R.Logenthiran, Trading as M/s.Bharani Engineering Work v.Mr.P.Moorthy; The Registrar of Copyrights
Petitioners sought rectification and expungement of a copyright registration (A-146894/2023) for an artistic photograph of a pump assembly. Petitioners argued that since the article was also registered as a design earlier, Section 15(1) of the Copyright Act should apply. However, the Court found that the work registered was the Pump Assembly itself (as a design), not the photograph/artistic work, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Mandeep Singh v.Shabir Momin & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications related to the rectification and cancellation of trademarks associated with 'Instant Bollywood.' While the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material documents indicating prior knowledge of the trademark registrations, it chose not to dismiss the interim injunction application. Instead, the court entertained the injunction but imposed a significant cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on the petitioner for the non-disclosure.
Samriddhi Rice Mill Private Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights which dismissed its objection and issued a Copyright Certificate in favour of Respondent No.6 (Dinman Polypacks Private Limited). The appeal was filed after a significant delay, and the core issue before the court was whether sufficient cause existed to condone this 506-day delay.
University College London v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
University College London appealed an order rejecting its divisional patent application concerning 'A Delayed Release Drug Formulation.' The core dispute centered on whether the complete specification of the parent application related to more than one invention, which was the basis for rejection. The appellant argued that their claims were distinct and did not constitute double patenting. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for reconsideration.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
In a procedural ruling concerning an infringement action, the UPC addressed the issue of invalid party representation for the claimant. Despite the respondent's request to dismiss the case due to the representative's lack of authority, the court rejected this argument. The panel ruled that while the initial representation was defective, it did not invalidate the entire proceeding. Instead, the claimant was granted 30 days to appoint a new, valid representative who would be required to ratify all prior submissions.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN 243301, held by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Respondent No. 2), concerning the anti-diabetic drug LINAGLIPTIN. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of the petition on grounds that it was filed after the patent expired and because invalidity had already been raised in an ongoing infringement suit. The Court dismissed these objections, holding that a revocation petition can be sustained even after the patent term expires.
Biotech Visioncare Pvt Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Gujarat High Court quashed an earlier rejection order issued by the Registrar of Trademarks against Biotech Visioncare's trademark application for 'BIOVISION'. The petitioner successfully argued that a subsequent successful registration of the same mark provided grounds to reconsider the initial denial. Consequently, the court directed the Trademark Registry to freshly hear the original 2016 application while taking into account the later certificate of registration.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
M/s. Zonex Industries v.Kunal Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court upheld a lower court's decision to stay an infringement lawsuit concerning the 'ZONEX' trademark. The petitioner, M/s. Zonex Industries, challenged the stay, arguing that their trademark was validly registered. However, the court found that since the respondent had initiated rectification proceedings challenging the validity of the registration before the competent forum, the suit for infringement must be stayed under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. This ruling reinforces the legal mechanism allowing parties to pause litigation while trademark validity is being determined.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC Local Chamber decision in Mannheim concerns a cost determination procedure related to EP 4 001 835. The case was resolved not through judicial ruling but because the claimant and respondent reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the court accepted the withdrawal of the request and terminated the costs proceedings.
Asian Paints Limited v.Galaxy Paints Private Limited
The Bombay High Court granted Asian Paints Limited leave to combine its claims for trademark/copyright infringement with passing off against Galaxy Paints Private Limited. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of passing off, noting the deceptive similarity between the 'TRACTOR SHYNE' and 'MAGIC TOUCH' trade dresses. Furthermore, the Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or selling products using similar branding until the suit is finally disposed of.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
Moneywise Finvest Limited v.Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited
Moneywise Finvest Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Ksn Credence Commodities Trading Private Limited regarding the use of similar marks ('STOXKART' vs 'STOCKART') in the financial services sector. While the plaintiff initially sought an urgent ex-parte injunction due to delisting from Google Play, the court noted that this issue had been resolved by the plaintiff's appeal. The court subsequently allowed various procedural applications and scheduled the matter for further consideration, allowing the suit to proceed.
Ttk Prestige Ltd v.K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors
Ttk Prestige Ltd filed a suit against K K And Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors alleging trademark infringement and passing off concerning its registered brand 'PRESTIGE'. The court granted temporary relief, restraining Defendants No. 2 and 3 from manufacturing or selling products using the disputed mark until the next hearing date. This interim order protects the plaintiff's established market reputation while the full merits of the case are examined.
M/S.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. v.M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by M/S.Sri Narasu's Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. against M/S.Shri Lakshmi Agro Agencies. The petitioner had sought to cancel the trademark registration 'Udhaiyam' in Class 30, citing grounds for invalidity. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise and filed an additional joint memo requesting withdrawal. Consequently, the court accepted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs sought leave to inspect documents filed by Defendant No. 4 under Section 30 CPC, which related to disclosure of turnover concerning patented PCA units. The Court constituted a Confidentiality Club to facilitate this inspection, subject to prescribed rules.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application for public access to the register concerning a closed UPC case (UPC_CFI_181/2024). The Court granted Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB access to specific redacted documents, affirming the general principle that proceedings are open to the public after termination. However, recognizing the need for consistent jurisprudence on confidentiality obligations post-access, the court also granted leave to appeal and suspended the order's effects.
Ms Allanasons Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the matter concerning Ms Allanasons Private Limited versus The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. This interim order scheduled both associated commercial IP disputes (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2024 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 91/2024) for a hearing on August 29, 2025. The court's directive indicates the ongoing procedural progression of these trademark matters.
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.