IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 110 of 189 · 5,670 total
The Football Association Premier League Limited v.Sportshub.Stream & Ors.
The Football Association Premier League Limited filed a suit against various defendants and websites alleging widespread copyright infringement through unauthorized streaming of its content. The court addressed several procedural applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advanced service requirements concerning regulatory authorities like DoT and MEITY. Furthermore, the court registered the plaint as a formal suit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with seeking permanent injunctions against infringing websites and domains.
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Alivus Life Sciences Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 282654 related to Ivacaftor. The court initially allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation, and subsequently passed an interim order granting ex-parte injunctions against the defendant regarding the use and sale of the patented product.
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited v.Novo Nordisk A/S
Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents (Novo Nordisk A/S) and set timelines for filing replies, while also disposing of several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors, Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The court found the rejection order unsustainable due to misinterpretation of previous orders and noted an exceptional delay in the process. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, directing fresh adjudication by another Controller.
M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited v.Sukanya Gupta
The petitioner, M/S Shri Sai Entertainment Private Limited, filed a petition to set aside an arbitral award against Mrs. Sukanya Gupta, alleging breach of contract and misuse of intellectual property related to beauty pageants. The petitioner claimed damages for her running a competing pageant shortly after the agreement expired. However, the court dismissed the petition, finding no patent illegality in the arbitrator's findings.
Viiv Healthcare Company And Anr v.Dy Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors.
Viiv Healthcare Company appealed a decision by the Deputy Controller rejecting its patent application (IN 3865/KOLNP/2007) for HIV integrase inhibitors Dolutegravir and Cabotegravir. The appeal challenged the rejection order, citing exceptional delays in the patent process. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Indorbit Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court rejected Torrent Pharmaceuticals' oral request to pass a permanent injunction and decree against Indorbit Pharmaceuticals based on passing off and copyright infringement. Although the defendants failed to file written statements, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established its prior adoption and usage of the new trade dress (SHELCAL-500) since September 2022. The judgment emphasizes that while a party's failure to respond can lead to a default decree, the threshold for such an order is high, especially in complex IP matters like pharmaceutical products, necessitating full evidence and trial.
M/S Green Star Pharma Llp v.Ved Prakash Trading As Green Star Pharma
This Delhi High Court order addresses an appeal filed by M/S Green Star Pharma Llp against the Commercial Court's dismissal of its interim injunction application. The core dispute revolves around the use of the 'GREEN STAR' trademark in the pharmaceutical sector. While the appellant relies on passing off, the court raises significant questions regarding the timing and scope of goodwill acquisition, especially given the respondent's earlier registered device mark.
Jindal Steel And Power Limited v.Jp Structures Private Limited
In this ongoing trademark infringement dispute, Jindal Steel And Power Limited challenged the trial court's decision to delete Defendant No. 1 (Jp Structures Private Limited) from the case. The petitioner argued that Defendant No. 1 was a necessary party because they were the original user of the infringing goods and disclosed the names of subsequent suppliers. The High Court directed notice be issued, ensuring the matter would be heard on July 3rd, allowing the dispute over party status to continue.
Ms C R Auluck And Sons Private Limited v.Ms Dharamlaxmi Machines Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a stay on the registered trademark 'DHARMLAXMI' belonging to the respondent, in favor of the petitioner who owns 'LUXMI'. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting deceptive similarity between the two marks and products (sewing machines), noting that the respondent was using the mark in a manner different from its registration. This interim order is crucial for the petitioner as it prevents the respondent from continuing to operate under the disputed trademark while the rectification petition proceeds.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co Ltd
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed against the trademark 'FLORASIS'. The Delhi High Court granted condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to all parties, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. v.Vinod Kumar & Anr.
In a trademark dispute concerning bearing group products, the Delhi High Court issued an order on May 14, 2025. The court noted that negotiation talks between M/S. F.K. Bearing Group Co. Ltd. and the respondents were still ongoing. Consequently, the court decided to renotify the parties for further proceedings on August 7, 2025, indicating a continued focus on out-of-court resolution.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd v.Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file additional documentation and, crucially, addressed the request for an ad interim injunction. While noting concerns over mark similarity and color combination usage, the court granted conditional relief, requiring the defendant (D-1) to change its packaging colors within two weeks while allowing it to exhaust existing stock.
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S Aggarwal Trading Company approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of their trademark register entries (Registration Nos. 671443 and 671598). The petitioner argued that despite the marks being valid up to specific future dates, the online system incorrectly displayed messages indicating renewal failure due to delays. The court took cognizance of this discrepancy and issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, directing them to provide clarifications regarding the validity and renewal status of both trademarks.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Huawei sought an order to protect confidential information and trade secrets contained in its complaint. The court granted the request in part, classifying the grey-highlighted information and marked attachments as confidential and ordering all participants in the proceedings to treat them as such, while declining to impose access restrictions on the defendants themselves.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd requested that certain information in its complaint be classified as confidential and that all participants in the proceedings be obligated to maintain confidentiality, including after the proceedings conclude. The court granted the request, classifying the identified information as confidential and ordering that it be kept confidential by all persons involved in the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. Following a main decision largely favoring the plaintiff on infringement and maintaining the patent in restricted form, the plaintiff sought reimbursement of EUR 84,950 in costs. The defendant objected that the costs were disproportionate given the limited infringement period and modest economic significance. The court rejected the objections, finding the defendant failed to provide substantiated arguments on disproportionality, and ordered full reimbursement of the capped amount.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc., Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 536 712 B1, owned by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and exclusively licensed to Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, which claims a second medical use of a PCSK9 inhibitor for reducing lipoprotein(a) levels in specific patient populations. The Claimants alleged that Amgen's marketing of Repatha® (evolocumab) infringed the patent, while Amgen counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimants failed to prove infringement of the second medical use claim while the Defendants failed to establish that the patent claims lacked novelty or inventive step.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s petition for rehearing of the Director’s discretionary denial in a series of IPRs against Telcom Ventures. The Board affirmed the original denial, leaving the patents in force.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Wilus requests Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR, alleging Samsung broke its Sotera‑type stipulation by planning to use the same prior art in district‑court litigation. The Board had previously denied discretionary denial based on Samsung’s promise.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Acorn’s ’395 patent succeeded on eight of the 26 claims, finding claims 1‑5 and 8‑10 unpatentable, while the remaining claims survived.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
The PTAB held that Samsung Electronics’ challenge to Acorn Semi’s ’261 patent succeeded, finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable based on anticipation by Grupp ’483 and obviousness over Jammy.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. v.OAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and Oak IP filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00889 after reaching a settlement, citing that the Board has not yet instituted the review and all disputes are resolved.
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.