IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 140 · 4,175 total
M/S Veerji Restaurant Private Limited v.Mohini Chaddha Trading As Veerj Ji Malai Chaap Wale & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in the trademark dispute, notably vacating an earlier ad-interim ex-parte injunction order against Defendant No. 2. The court found that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by presenting inaccurate facts regarding the termination of a franchise agreement. Furthermore, the disputes between the original parties (Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2) were referred to arbitration. Separately, the Court allowed additional documents for evidence while permitting Defendants No. 3 and 4 to join proceedings after recalling an ex-parte order.
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Ashim Kumar Ghosh against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'SoEasy'. The core issue was whether the mark, used for instructional and teaching material, possessed sufficient distinctiveness. The court ruled that 'SoEasy' is a suggestive mark—requiring consumers to use imagination and thought to connect it to educational products—and therefore qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Fdc Limited v.Healing Pharma India Private Limited
Fdc Limited filed a suit against Healing Pharma India Private Limited alleging multiple infringements related to its pharmaceutical products. The Delhi High Court issued an order addressing procedural aspects, including granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowing the filing of additional documents. Crucially, the court also addressed interim relief, restraining the defendant from manufacturing or marketing products confusingly similar to Fdc's registered trademarks (ZIFI) and copyrighted trade dress (ELECTRAL).
Dharma Production Private Limited v.Bhallaram Choudhary
The Rajasthan High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dharma Production Private Limited seeking a stay on an injunction preventing the release of their movie, 'Jigra,' due to alleged trademark violation. The court initially found that prima facie, naming a movie does not constitute trademark infringement when the appellant is not trading in goods or services under that name. However, given that the film had already been released, the High Court ultimately disposed of the appeal while directing the Trial Court to proceed with the temporary injunction application and the main suit strictly according to law.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker's ’590 patent covering smart‑meter appliances. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references for all 62 claims. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2025-11-21) under reference UPC-000226, Merz therapeuthics gmbh, Merz pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France appeared in dispute with Viatris Santé concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
UPM-Kymmene Oyi v.International N&H Denmark
This is a procedural order from the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court in a revocation action (UPC 829/2024) brought by UPM-Kymmene Oyj against International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The order, issued by Judge-rapporteur András Kupecz following an interim conference on 21 November 2025, sets the value of the case at EUR 1,000,000, grants the Defendant time to clarify its requests, and confirms the date of the oral hearing for 15 January 2026 in Munich.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A notice of decisions on institution was issued, denying several IPRs and granting others, while the status of Amazon's IPR against Smart Speaker remains pending.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
A USPTO notice details institution decisions for several IPRs, leaving the status of Amazon’s challenge to Smart Speaker’s patent unresolved.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
The document lists PTAB institution decisions for multiple IPRs, but does not provide a decision for IPR2026-00146.
Amazon.com Services LLC v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Smart Speaker's ’174 smart‑home patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues the examiner failed to consider key prior art and that the claims recite routine home‑automation functions.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging MYW Semitech’s 11,538,763 chip‑package patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks to invalidate the patent before the PTAB.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of MYW Semitech’s chip‑package patent. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references covering interposer and bump technologies.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. et al. v.MYW Semitech, LLC
TSMC and Apple have filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,107,768, asserting that all 28 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering chip‑package technology.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc. d/b/a MeshDynamics
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of MeshDynamics' ’762 VoIP mesh‑network patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition includes claim constructions and requests the Board to institute review.
Babaji Udyog v.Lalit Kumar
In a recent order, the Delhi High Court addressed settlement discussions between Babaji Udyog and Lalit Kumar. The defendant proposed settling the suit by conceding the plaintiff's proprietorship in the 'BABAJI' trademark, aligning with a previous court arrangement. The court noted that this proposal was made without prejudice to other pending litigations, requiring the plaintiff to take instructions before deciding whether to accept the offer.
Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v.Nalathoti Ramu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction in favor of Verizon Trademark Services LLC and its affiliates against Nalathoti Ramu. The court found that Verizon holds a well-known registered trademark for 'VERIZON' and that the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiffs. This interim order restrains the defendant from using, marketing, or advertising any marks identical or similar to VERIZON across various platforms, including domain names and social media handles.
X & Anr. v.Y & Ors.
The Delhi High Court extended an existing ex parte ad-interim injunction against a trademark infringer, ANCHOR/, to seven newly identified entities. This extension was granted after the Plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that these new parties were involved in dealing/selling counterfeit products during a local commission investigation. Furthermore, the court allowed the immediate execution of the local commission without prior notice to prevent disruption of evidence gathering.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
1. When assessing the inventive step from a legal perspective, it should always be borne in mind that it must be avoided that an invention is assessed with knowledge of the invention, i.e. retrospectively. This also applies when common general knowledge is relied upon. Also in such a case, it is usually necessary for the person skilled in the art to have an incentive to arrive at the claimed subject matter based on the state of the art. 2. If the claimant in revocation action decides no
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order on a Rule 36 RoP application by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha seeking permission to submit further written pleadings in its infringement action concerning EP 3 686 683 B1 against Katun Germany GmbH and other Katun entities plus General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. The court permitted Canon to file the EPO Opposition Division's preliminary opinion and a summary of its reasoning, but rejected the request to introduce evidence from an additional test purchase conducted in October 2024, finding the submission unjustifiably delayed and essentially redundant. The written procedure was deemed closed upon expiry of the filing deadline.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network‑1’s eUICC security patent (U.S. 12,166,869) faces a petition from Samsung. The patent owner argues the references either teach away or lack the required cryptographic linkage, urging the PTAB to deny institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Network-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s eUICC security patent, alleging obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references covering secure profile provisioning and IMSI encryption.
M/s.Rallis India Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Rallis India Limited appealed an order issued by the Deputy Controller of Patents challenging the rejection of its patent application for a stable herbicidal composition. The appellant argued that the prior art cited (IN 2243/MUM/2014, D1, and D2) did not adequately disclose or teach the claimed invention's specific formulation. The High Court found merit in these contentions.
Sudeep Gupta v.Registrar Of Trademarks Trademarks Registry New Delhi
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the cancellation of Sudeep Gupta's trademark registration (No. 4684988) during the pendency of his appeal. The Appellant challenged the cancellation, which was based on Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, arguing that his mark is a composite mark and therefore exempt from the 'exclusivity' requirement. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Appellant, citing precedent that limits the application of Section 9(1)(b) to non-composite marks.
Dr. K. Sudhagar / M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited v.P.Raja / M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED / The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a complex suite of trademark infringement and rectification cases involving 'VITRO LAB' after the parties reached an amicable resolution. The plaintiffs, Dr. K. Sudhagar and M/s.Gamete Cells Science Healthcare Private Limited, had filed suits seeking injunctions against passing off and damages from P.Raja and M/s.ART VITROLABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. Simultaneously, Original Petitions were filed to rectify the trademark register concerning related marks. The court formally closed all proceedings based on a Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v.Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
The Gujarat High Court allowed Lincoln Pharmaceuticals' appeal against the rejection of its trademark registration for 'Glypanta'. The court ruled that despite initial objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the applicant was entitled to proceed with the advertisement of the mark. This decision underscores the importance of following procedural steps like publication even when substantive objections exist.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni di Morello Marco & C. S.A.S. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Marciuliano Attrezzature di Marciuliano Salvatore
This is a default judgment decision concerning European Patent EP 3691454 B1, titled 'Method and apparatus for shaping pizza,' brought by Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. against Gastroteam Abbe AB (Sweden) and Salvatore Marciuliano, proprietor of Marciuliano Attrezzature (Italy). The defendants failed to appear in the proceedings, prompting the court to examine the requirements for issuing a default decision under Article 37 UPCS and Rules 277 and 355 RoP. The court analyzed the validity of service of the summons, the principle of non-contestation of specific facts under Rule 171.2 RoP, and the standard of proof required for default judgments.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o.
This case concerns European Patent No. 2 449 982 (as referenced in the order) and was filed by Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. against multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The proceedings were registered under case numbers UPC_CFI_87/2025 and UPC_CFI_488/2025. The available text only contains the procedural header identifying the parties, their legal representatives, and the patent in suit, with the substantive content of the order not provided.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. v.Siltronic AG a. o.
This order concerns the scope of disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation proceedings and the protection of confidential information under Article 58 of the relevant agreement. The applicant, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd., is the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to saw wires used in semiconductor wafer production. The respondents are Siltronic AG, a silicon wafer manufacturer that purchases saw wires from the applicant, and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG, a logistics company providing storage services. The presiding judge established guiding principles for handling trade secrets, personal data of third parties, and other confidential information when disclosing the expert report to the applicant.
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.