IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 140 of 140 · 4,175 total
Tube Investments Of India Ltd. v.BSA-Regal Group Ltd.
This case involved disputes between Tube Investments Of India Ltd. and the BSA-Regal Group Ltd. concerning the use of the 'BSA' trademark on motorcycles, parts, and accessories. Both parties filed suits alleging infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, during the proceedings before the Madras High Court, both plaintiffs successfully endorsed that their respective suits had been settled out of court.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear International Limited, NETGEAR Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 678 321. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd filed an infringement action against three Netgear entities, who filed a counterclaim for invalidity. Both parties agreed to have the infringement action and the invalidity counterclaim heard together before the Local Chamber Munich, and the panel concurred with this request.
Linkplay Technology Inc. et al. v.Sonos, Inc.
Linkplay Technology has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Sonos’s audio playback patent (U.S. 10,853,023) by asserting anticipation and obviousness over two prior‑art references, Barbe and Richenstein. The petition also argues that discretionary denial does not apply.
Thermo Electrics Madras Manufacturing v.P.R.Gopalakrishnan
Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for committing piracy through fraudulent imitation of four registered designs (No. 193288, 193289, 193290, 193291) related to Extraction and Heating Mantles. The plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had access to their trade secrets and designs during his employment with the second plaintiff, leading to unauthorized imitation.
M/s.Haldor Topsoe A/S v.Controller of Patents & Designs, Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order dated 09.03.2021 rejecting/abandoning their patent application (No. 297/CHE/2012). The petitioner argued that the rejection violated natural justice and was based on non-application of mind, as no proper second examination report was conducted. The Court found the order unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and quashed it, remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
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.