IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 64 · 1,915 total
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This UPC decision addressed a third party's request for access to the file in an ongoing infringement and revocation case concerning printer cartridge patents (EP2089230 and EP1737669). LIFE 365 S.R.L. sought full disclosure, arguing that the technical arguments from the UPC proceedings were relevant to its parallel litigation in Italy. The court ultimately granted limited access to key pleadings but denied broader access, emphasizing that only documents directly necessary for the Italian dispute would be shared.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.; Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich separated an infringement action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. against four Chinese defendants. The separation was necessitated by differing service timelines for the defendants, allowing proceedings to continue against two parties while awaiting service on the remaining two. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex multi-defendant cases under the UPC framework.
Brawn Biotech Ltd. v.Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Brawn Biotech Ltd. against Brawn Healthcare India P. Ltd., following the failure of mediation proceedings to settle the dispute. The court has set out procedural timelines, including filing written statements and replication. Crucially, the court also granted notice for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application, allowing the plaintiffs to seek immediate protection against alleged infringement of the 'BRAWN' trademark.
Abdul Rahim Khalilur Rehman v.Abdul Karim Khalilur Rehman
The Bombay High Court addressed two Commercial Arbitration Petitions concerning a dispute over the dissolved partnership firm's assets, specifically the 'Moulvi' trademark. The core issue was whether third parties (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) could be bound by the ongoing arbitration proceedings against Respondent No. 1. The court ruled that instead of granting immediate relief, it converted the petitions into Section 17 applications, directing the Petitioner to raise the 'alter ego' doctrine before the Arbitral Tribunal itself. This allows the tribunal, guided by Supreme Court precedent, to determine if the third parties are bound by the existing arbitration agreement.
Nitin Maheshwari And Anr v.Patanjali Foods Limited
The Delhi High Court addressed a procedural matter in an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Patanjali Foods Limited. The petitioners sought to challenge a previous dismissal order, which was related to their application under Section 151 CPC. Recognizing the core dispute involves trademark rights (infringement and passing off), the court directed that the petition be re-registered as CM(M)-IPD to ensure proper classification within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
AYLO PREMIUM LTD v.DISH Technologies L.L.C.
In a revocation action concerning EP3 822 805 B1, AYLO PREMIUM LTD sought security for legal costs from DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing high insolvency risks within the Defendant's corporate group. However, the UPC Central Division rejected this request. The Court found that the Defendant provided sufficient evidence of its solvency, including a declaration from EchoStar undertaking to cover potential costs. This decision highlights how financial stability and supporting declarations can influence procedural rulings in complex patent litigation.
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.
Husqvarna AB v.POSITEC Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's request to change the language of its infringement case from German to English. The court balanced the arguments, ultimately prioritizing the defendant's position regarding fairness and operational needs over the claimant's preference for the patent grant language. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the practical disadvantages faced by parties when determining procedural language in UPC proceedings.
Force Motors Limited v.Houstan Innovations Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed several interim applications in the dispute between Force Motors Limited and Houstan Innovations LLP. While allowing procedural requests like filing additional documents, the court focused heavily on the request for an ad-interim injunction against trademark infringement and passing off. Recognizing the Plaintiff's established goodwill with 'FORCE', the court granted a temporary restraint order, preventing the Defendant from using the similar mark 'GT FORCE' in relation to identical or similar products until the next hearing date.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking quashing of a previous order and directing the Controller to grant a patent on application number 202117018914. The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and listed the matter for further hearing.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
This Local Division Mannheim decision addressed procedural requests regarding the access and transcription of an oral hearing in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. The Court partially granted the defendants' request, allowing them to listen to the confidential audio recording at another UPC location. However, the core request for a complete, independently produced transcript was rejected. The ruling emphasizes the strict interpretation of procedural rules (R. 115 RoP) regarding hearing records, balancing the need for party access against maintaining confidentiality and preventing misuse outside the UPC framework.
Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd v.P.Sundaram
The Madras High Court allowed Asia Match Company Pvt Ltd to file additional documents in its rectification petition against P.Sundaram. The petitioner sought to introduce trade mark applications filed by the respondent's son, arguing they demonstrated deceptive similarity and concerted action. While the respondent raised several objections regarding relevance and timing, the court ruled that the issue of relevance could be determined during the trial phase, granting permission for filing while preserving the respondent's right to challenge admissibility later.
Sanofi SA and associated entities (including Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, etc.) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, involving Sanofi as the claimant and various generic manufacturers (Accord Healthcare, Zentiva, etc.) as defendants. The court confirmed key dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing in October 2025. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by the parties regarding the review of EPO decisions and the standardization of legal briefs across different defendant groups.
ArcelorMittal v.Autohaus Adelbert Moll GmbH & Co. KG, XPENG MOTORS (Netherlands) BV, ASIAN MOTORS SALES BV, MOLL GmbH & Co.KG, XPENG EUROPEAN HOLDING BV, JEAN LAIN AUTOMOBILES SAS, HEDIN AUTOMOTIVE SA, XPENG MOTORS (Belgium) Sarl, E-LAIN SAS, EJNER HESSEL A/S, BILIA AB, XPENG MOTORS FRANCE SARL
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by multiple XPENG-related entities and others to change the language of an infringement case from French (or German) to English. The court granted this application, citing fairness and convenience, noting that English was the patent's granting language and widely used among the parties. Crucially, the Claimant, ArcelorMittal, was ordered to provide translations of its Statement of Claim at its own expense. This decision sets a practical precedent regarding procedural efficiency in multinational UPC cases.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf halted proceedings to address critical deficiencies in the Claimant's evidence regarding patent ownership. The court found that the documentation supporting various assignments and authorizations was confusing or incomplete, particularly concerning retroactive approvals. This ruling underscores the necessity for claimants to provide a clear, legally sound chain of title when asserting infringement rights under the UPC.
M/S.Maya Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
The appellant challenged the Deputy Controller's order revoking Patent No. 452008, which covered an Intelligent Cooking Stove System. The revocation was based on lack of inventive step. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Applicant v.Defendant
In this procedural order, the Applicant sought to secure and preserve evidence (Saisie) against the Defendant based on a high probability of patent infringement. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that the applicant's allegations were too vague and lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the threshold for provisional measures. The ruling also questioned the scope of the requested measures, particularly those requiring active participation from the defendant in setting up complex test environments.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Bigbear Pharmaceutical (Lao) Co., Ltd
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841 related to Ruxolitinib compounds. The court passed several orders granting exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and appointed Local Commissioners to inspect the alleged infringing activities.
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited v.Registrar of Trademarks
Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited successfully challenged the Trademark Registry's refusal of its 'Apollo' trademark application in the Gujarat High Court. The initial rejection was based on a likelihood of confusion with an existing mark, but the court accepted an affidavit and No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the owner of the cited mark. Consequently, the court quashed the original rejection order and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused heavily on procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning patent EP 3 732 827. The parties, Barco N.V. and Yealink, contested the competence of the local division and the initial costs order. While the core infringement dispute was not decided, the Court provided clear guidance on divisional competence under Art. 33 UPCA and established a precedent for interim cost awards in provisional measures cases. The ruling is significant for practitioners as it clarifies how courts should approach jurisdictional challenges and the practical application of interim relief mechanisms within the UPC framework.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
Novartis A.G. v.YY
The Plaintiffs, Novartis A.G. and its affiliate, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 419280. The court granted several interlocutory orders, including an interim injunction and exemption from mandatory pre-litigation mediation.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
This decision addresses the complex issue of managing a large number of auxiliary requests filed by Claimant 2 (Harvard College) in an application to amend a patent, while parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing at the EPO. The Court recognized that given the extensive validity attacks, limiting the amendments strictly is not feasible under the principle of fairness. Consequently, the proceedings were stayed pending the EPO's decision, and Harvard was instructed to consolidate its requests for submission shortly thereafter.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
Hi Tech Products Private Limited v.Gopal Radios
The suit was filed by Hi Tech Products Private Limited, which uses the registered trademark FALCON for electrical goods since 1977. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant, Gopal Radios, adopted and used the deceptively similar mark 'FALCON' on products, including counterfeit electric wires and cables. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and awarding damages.
Aethlon Medical, Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks & Anr.
Aethlon Medical, Inc appealed an order refusing to grant its patent application for a medical device used in extracorporeal removal of microvesicular particles. The initial refusal was based on lack of novelty and non-patentability under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court examined the matter, accepting the auxiliary claims as permissible amendments within the specification. Ultimately, the court found that the merits had not been fully examined and remanded the case back to the Controller General for fresh consideration, granting the appellant a hearing.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC Central Division order addresses a revocation action brought by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH concerning EP 4 019 790. The court established the procedural framework, setting the value in dispute and confirming the schedule for the oral hearing. While no substantive ruling was made, this order confirms the parties' readiness to proceed with the revocation proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm successfully sued Kodak entities for infringing a patent related to lithographic printing plates in the UPC Local Division Mannheim. The court found infringement, leading to significant remedies including mandatory destruction and recall of the contested products. While Fujifilm's counterclaim for revocation was dismissed, the defendants were ordered to pay an interim award for legal costs, marking a decisive victory for the claimant.
Sysvine Technologies Private Limited v.The Assistant Commissioner of Police
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a Writ Petition filed by Sysvine Technologies seeking action against another party for alleged trademark violation. Although the court noted that the petition was not maintainable as a direct request for an FIR registration, it issued a crucial direction. The court mandated that the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Cell must consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 and take appropriate legal action within eight weeks.
Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. v.Haridwar International Ayurveda & Ors.
In a suit concerning the alleged infringement of its trademark and copyright, Sanjeev Juneja & Ors. successfully secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction from the Delhi High Court. The court also permitted the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect and potentially seize infringing stock bearing the 'PET SAFFA' mark. This order allows the plaintiffs to proceed urgently with their infringement claims while setting out procedural timelines for filing pleadings.
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.