IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 116 of 140 · 4,175 total
YC Electric Vehicle v.Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Bhuvneesh Kapoor Proprietor Of Two Friends Auto Electric Co. The court found that the defendant's use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'YATRI' and 'SAHYATRI', constituted infringement of the plaintiff's renowned trademarks ('YATRI' and 'YC') and copyright associated with electric vehicles. This order provides immediate protection to YC Electric Vehicle while the main suit proceeds.
Hindustan Syringes And Medical Device and Ltd. v.Unomedical A/S and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Hindustan Syringes against a previous decision by the Registrar of Trademarks. The court set aside the impugned order, which had previously dismissed the opposition filed by Hindustan Syringes regarding the mark 'UNOMEDICAL'. Furthermore, based on the parties' consent, the court also allowed a rectification petition, leading to the cancellation of UNOMEDICAL's trademark registration in Class 10. This decision significantly impacts the validity and scope of the contested brand.
Epikindifi Software And Solutions Pty Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Delhi High Court addressed rectification petitions filed by Epikindifi Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. concerning the marks LEND.EZEE (No. 6174368 and 6174369). The court noted a procedural error in the filing, specifically regarding the petitioner's name. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to file a corrected Memo of Parties within one week. Further proceedings were scheduled after granting time for both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
Pfizer SA, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer B.V., Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer Oy, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.r.l., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfize v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,071,391 and jointly moved to terminate the post‑grant review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §327.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 327 and to terminate the ongoing post‑grant review of Patent 12,071,391.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
The Director denied Intas Pharmaceuticals' request for review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00799, leaving Atossa Therapeutics' Patent 11,261,151 in place.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals challenges Atossa Therapeutics’ endoxifen patent in IPR 2025‑00799. The petitioner argues the Board correctly instituted the case and that the Patent Owner’s new arguments are unsupported. The response seeks denial of the Owner’s request for Director Review.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 44 claims of Atossa’s 391 patent covering 90% (Z)-endoxifen compositions, asserting anticipation, obviousness, and lack of written description.
Intas Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. v.Atossa Therapeutics, Inc.
Intas Pharmaceuticals successfully secured the institution of IPR against Atossa Therapeutics over a drug polymorph patent (11,261,151), challenging claims based on anticipation and obviousness using prior art Liu.
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.
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited
Bol7 Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the 'Toy Building Block' design (No. 345217-001), filed a suit against various defendants, including e-commerce platforms like Flipkart, alleging infringement and dilution due to counterfeit toys being sold online. The court found that Defendants no. 6, 8, and 10 were misusing the registered design, granting permanent injunctions against them.
Jansen Pharmaceutica Nv v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Jansen Pharmaceutica appealed the rejection of its patent application for a dry, intravenously administrable formulation of tipifarnib. The Controller rejected the application, citing lack of inventive steps and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The High Court found that the impugned order was vague, lacked reasoning, and failed to apply established principles for determining inventive steps.
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Dr. Joy Vadakkan Thomas appealed an order rejecting Patent Application No. 201941042481 for a method to capture carbon dioxide. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d). The High Court set aside the impugned order, noting that new grounds were raised by the respondent, and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
M/s.Nirmala Transportation and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Nirmala Transportation's appeal against the rejection of its trade mark application under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's arguments regarding the distinct nature of services (goods transport vs. travel arrangements). Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Registrar, contingent upon the appellant providing an undertaking restricting its use to goods transportation.
Jan Aushadhi Sangh v.M/S. Pharmaceuticals And Medical Devices Bureau of India (PMBI)
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal filed by Jan Aushadhi Sangh challenging a lower court's judgment that granted injunction and damages to PMBI for trademark infringement. While the core dispute over the injunction was maintained, the High Court provided relief regarding the financial aspect of the ruling. The appellant was permitted to stay the execution of the Rs. 10 lakh damage award upon depositing Rs. 5 lakhs with the court, though the injunction against further alleged infringement remains in force.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Applicant v.Defendant
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_142/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 March 2025 Applicant […] represented by: […] electronic address for service: […] Defendant […] PATENT AT ISSUE: […] PANEL/DIVISION: Lo
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, following a Court of Appeal determination that the claimant's appointed representative could not validly serve as a representative of the legal person due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers. The judge-rapporteur invited written submissions from the parties on the consequences of this inability to serve. The claimant requested that the representative be allowed to continue or, alternatively, be given time to correct the representation configuration, while the defendant sought rejection of the action as manifestly inadmissible and a default decision revoking the patent in the counterclaim proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, ***
This case concerns European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and involves a dispute over the release of evidence-secured CAD files to the applicant and the collection of penalty payments. The applicant, Hybridgenerator ApS, had obtained an evidence preservation order from the Local Division in Copenhagen on August 26, 2024, which was executed by the bailiff court in Svendborg on August 30, 2024. However, the evidence preservation was not completed because the respondents refused to provide usernames and passwords to their cloud-based economic system (e-conomics) and email, in violation of the Court's order.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
AfterWords, Inc. filed a preliminary response opposing GetTattle’s IPR petition, contending that the cited prior art does not disclose the patented Survey Module and therefore the petition should be denied.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of AfterWords' ‘811 patent covering transaction‑specific surveys. The petition relies on two prior‑art publications, Douglas and Ganesh, asserting they anticipate all claimed elements. Claim constructions are provided to bolster the anticipation argument.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v.Shanghai Miracogen Inc. et al.
CSPC Megalith Biopharmaceutical Co., Ltd. successfully argued obviousness over Wei, Liu, and Leanna in an IPR proceeding against Shanghai Miracogen Inc. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims, leading to the institution of the case for trial.
GetTattle, Inc. v.AfterWords, Inc.
GetTattle, Inc. successfully petitioned to institute IPR against AfterWords, Inc.'s patent (10430811) based on anticipation grounds (§ 102). The Board found sufficient support in prior art references Douglas and Ganesh for all challenged claims, leading to the institution of the case.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited filed a suit seeking the removal of an identical word mark, 'ZEPTO,' registered by Respondent No. 1 under Section 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Petitioner uses 'ZEPTO' for instant grocery delivery services, while the Respondent holds the mark in Class 35 relating to mobile phone marketing. The court has initiated proceedings by issuing notices to all parties, setting the stage for a detailed examination of trademark conflict and consumer confusion.
M/S A & J Designers v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
M/S A & J Designers successfully challenged the non-renewal of their 'Paris' trademark registration in the Kerala High Court. The petitioner argued that they were never served with the renewal notice because the respondents had mistakenly sent it to the wrong address due to a typographical error. The court found merit in this claim, allowing the writ petition and directing the competent authority to issue fresh notice and renew the registration expeditiously.
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.