IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 12 of 140 · 4,175 total
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation et al. v.Railware, Inc. et al.
Wabtec has filed an IPR petition challenging Railware’s RE 49,115 patent. The petition asserts that claims 20‑36 are obvious over the FRA‑Report combined with secret‑code references. No discretionary denial is alleged.
M/S Metrix Research And Analytics Private Limited v.Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi
The plaintiff, a market research company, sued its former employee, Shri Vineet Kumar Tripathi, alleging that he misused confidential trade secrets and proprietary methodologies after resigning to benefit his new employer. The court examined the allegations of misappropriation but found the evidence led by the plaintiff to be deficient and conjectural.
Mr.Suraj Sharma v.Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd.
This matter involved a trademark dispute between Mr. Suraj Sharma and Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd., which was initially litigated before the Madras High Court. Following a compromise reached between both parties, formalized by an agreement dated 12.08.2025 and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court, the pending appeals were listed for compliance. Consequently, the court dismissed the intra-court appeals as withdrawn.
M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. v.Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit concerning trademark disputes between M/S Rspl Pvt. Ltd. and Ymi Ghar Soaps Private Limited & Ors. The dispute centers on the use and protection of trademarks, specifically 'GHADI' and 'GHAR'. While several interlocutory applications were disposed of, the court formally allowed the suit to proceed, setting timelines for both parties to file their written statements and replies, thereby moving the matter into the substantive litigation phase.
Irish Distillers International Limited v.Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted a rectification petition filed by Irish Distillers International Limited, leading to the cancellation of the 'BLUE SPOT' trademark registration held by Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd. The court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the mark for over five years from its grant date. Given the lack of market presence and unrebutted evidence of non-use, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reinforcing the statutory grounds for trademark removal.
Pachranga International Inc. v.M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd
In this trademark dispute, Pachranga International Inc. sought interim relief against M/S Pachranga Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd for the continued use of the mark 'PACHRANGA' on social media and in its corporate name. The Court directed the defendant to ensure all remaining infringing listings are removed within one week upon receiving specific examples from the plaintiff. However, the court deferred a final decision on the issue of the defendant using the trademark as part of its corporate name, requiring further consideration after the injunction application is determined.
Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd v.Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the ongoing IP infringement suit filed by Big Dipper Laser Science And Technology Co Ltd against Big Deeper Industries Llp & Anr. The court granted the plaintiff an exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation, citing the urgency of interim relief sought. Furthermore, the court set out a detailed schedule for the parties to file their written statements and replication, while also addressing procedural matters regarding document filing and translation.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd., v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (TP-Link entities and Lianzhou International) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. concerning European patent EP 3678321. The Defendants argued that English, the language in which the patent was granted, should be used as the language of proceedings for reasons of fairness, citing the strict time constraints of the UPC rules of procedure, the internal working language of the parties, and the need for rapid coordination among the multiple Defendants. Huawei opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The matter was referred to the President of the Court of First Instance under Rule 323 RoP, with the panel of the Local Division Munich consulted.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. (ACD), a California-based company and proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization (ISH) technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, brought infringement actions against Molecular Instruments, Inc. before the Local Division The Hague of the Court of First Instance. The patents concern methods of detecting nucleic acids in individual cells and identifying rare cells from large heterogeneous cell populations using multiplex fluorescent and chromogenic ISH assays. The proceedings were heard orally on 2 October 2025, with the panel comprising Presiding Judge Edger Brinkman, legally qualified judge Alima Zana, judge-rapporteur Margot Kokke, and technically qualified judge Michael Alt.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.,
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
In IPR2024‑01094, the PTAB held claims 1,2,6,8‑14 of Pictiva’s OLED patent unpatentable over the Ma reference, while claims 3‑4 were upheld. The decision hinged on obviousness of joint vaporization and metal‑complex coordination.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all of Samsung's challenged OLED claims unpatentable. The Board held that the claims were obvious over multiple prior‑art OLED references. The decision affirms the institution of the IPR.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
Aqualite Industries Private Limited v.Relaxo Footwears Limited
This appeal before the Delhi High Court concerned allegations that Aqualite Industries was infringing on Relaxo Footwears' registered designs for hawai slippers. Relaxo had secured an interim injunction against Aqualite, which challenged this order. The court examined whether Aqualite's products were identical to the protected designs and whether the registrations themselves were invalid due to prior art or lack of novelty. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, finding that the suit designs possessed novelty and that Aqualite was infringing Relaxo's registered design.
M/s.Hi Tech Chemicals Limited v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Intellectual Property Office
Hi Tech Chemicals Limited challenged the Deputy Controller's rejection of its post-grant opposition against Patent No. 311984, which covered an anti-stick coating. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order because it failed to provide reasons for rejecting material grounds of opposition. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by a different officer.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 relating to a cable processing device, filed an application for an order of inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. The application was filed on November 14, 2025, in preparation for a main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on November 17, 2025, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. a. o.
Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sought inspection at the respondent's trade fair stand at the EMO Messe Hannover, which was ordered and executed in September 2025. Following the respondent's failure to assert any confidentiality interests regarding the expert's detailed description, the court ordered disclosure of the unredacted version to the applicant.
Nike Innovate C.V. v.Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor Of Fashionista & Ors.
Nike Innovate C.V. filed a contempt petition against Kawal Deep Singh, Proprietor of Fashionista & Ors., alleging willful disobedience of a compromise decree dated 13.10.2025. The original suit involved claims of trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and unauthorized use of Nike's intellectual property. Despite settling the matter and undertaking to cease all infringing activities, the petitioner presented evidence showing the respondents continued selling and soliciting the impugned goods. Consequently, the court found prima facie grounds for contempt and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to seize the infringing materials.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy, filed an application seeking condonation of a 53-day delay in filing an Appeal against the refusal of Patent Application No. 201917042060. The Respondent accepted the notice and stated they had no objection to the condonation.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
Shroff Geeta v.Asst. Controller Of Patents And Design
The appellant challenged the rejection of a patent application for 'Composition comprising human embryonic stem cells and their derivatives' based on Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued that deriving these stem cells requires the destructive use of human embryos, making the invention contrary to public order or morality. The High Court upheld the rejection.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited v.Gsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.
Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.
woodland aero club pvt ltd v.ms narayan enterprises anr
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. sued M/S Narayan Enterprises for unauthorized use of its registered trademarks 'WOODLAND' and the Tree Mark Logo on jackets, causing likelihood of confusion among consumers. Defendant No. 1 was selling infringing jackets at a significantly lower price than Woodland’s genuine products.
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr
Kikli Hospitality Pvt Ltd filed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration (TM Application no. 4287348) held by Respondent No. 2, alleging non-use of the mark for over five years in Class 43. The petitioner presented evidence suggesting that the registered party lacked necessary operational licenses and was not conducting services under the impugned mark. The Delhi High Court accepted the petition and issued directions to serve notice upon all parties before listing the matter for final adjudication.
Zafar Alam & Anr. v.Mahesh Kumar
This Delhi High Court order addresses multiple interim applications concerning a trademark dispute involving 'LINK' and its variants. The Plaintiffs filed an application alleging wilful disobedience of a prior injunction, while the Defendant sought to vacate that same injunction. The court noted procedural lapses, specifically the Plaintiffs' failure to file required written submissions. Consequently, the court directed the Plaintiffs to submit their written arguments within two weeks before proceeding with the merits of the applications.
Arq Providores v.Schloss Hma Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking interim relief in a trademark infringement suit filed by Arq Providores against Schloss Hma Private Limited. While the court acknowledged the likelihood of confusion and potential harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation, it balanced this against the Defendants' existing use of the marks since November 2024. Consequently, the Court granted a conditional interim injunction, requiring the Defendants to restrict the use of 'ARQ' only in conjunction with their house mark 'THE LEELA' for specific services (Class 43), discontinue an infringing logo by December 15, 2025, and refrain from using 'ARQ' for certain food/catering services.
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
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.