IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 154 of 189 · 5,670 total
Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. v.Sandhar Technologies Ltd.
The suit was filed by Jay Switches India Pvt. Ltd. against Sandhar Technologies Ltd. & Ors for alleged infringement of a patented 'Air Tight Fuel Cap' and a registered design 'Fuel Tank Cap', along with claims of passing off. The court proceeded to frame issues based on the pleadings, including counterclaims regarding the novelty and inventive step of the Plaintiff's IP rights.
Mukesh Chand Khandelwal Trading As M/S Khandelwal Brothers v.M/S S N Biri Factory Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal filed by Mukesh Chand Khandelwal. The court condoned an eight-day delay in refiling the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. The case challenges the Registrar's decision that dismissed the appellant's trademark application due to a successful opposition filed by the respondent.
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 Limited and 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.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
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 and Atossa Therapeutics filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317 and to terminate the pending IPR on patent 11,261,151.
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.
Court decision.
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.
Court decision.
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 GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and 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 (UPC_CFI_142/2025)
The applicant, as registered and sole proprietor of a European Patent, sought an order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP to preserve evidence (Saisie) against the defendant, alleging highly probable infringement of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a sufficient degree of probability that the asserted claim combination was infringed, and that the requested measures—including requiring the defendant to actively set up a full test environment—went beyond what Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP permit.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) addressed a representation issue in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Following a Court of Appeal order confirming that the claimant's appointed representative could not serve due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno, the court declared the representative invalid, granted Suinno 30 days to appoint a new representative (who must ratify prior pleadings), and suspended procedural deadlines during that period.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 before the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen. The applicant sought release of seized CAD files to establish alleged patent infringement by the respondents' hybrid generator products (MPU 1000, 2000, and 3000). The court ordered that the CAD files be released to the applicant's representatives under confidentiality obligations, declined to impose the previously set penalty payments since the IT expert had eventually gained access to the encrypted computer, and postponed the decision on costs until the main proceedings.
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.
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.