IP Cases — 2025
4,177 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 140 · 4,177 total
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.
Myokardia Inc. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical
Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.
Marico Limited v.Essen Products India Limited
The Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief in favor of Marico Limited against Essen Products India Limited. The court allowed a leave petition to combine claims for passing off with trademark and copyright infringement. Based on prima facie evidence, the court found that the defendant's product was deceptively similar to Marico's well-established brands (Parachute and Nihar) and depicted in pirated artwork. Consequently, an injunction was issued preventing the defendants from using similar marks or trade dress pending the final disposal of the suit.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP (applicant) in Insulet Corporation v.EOFLow Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to written pleadings and evidence in the concluded proceedings Insulet Corporation v. EOFLow Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_768/2024) concerning EP 4 201 327. Both Insulet and EOFLow opposed the request, arguing lack of standing, purely commercial interest, confidentiality protections, GDPR data protection, and copyright concerns. The Court of Appeal granted access to Insulet's Statement of Appeal and a redacted version of EOFLow's Statement of Response, finding that a law firm qualifies as a member of the public and that the applicant's interest in understanding the court's decision was a legitimate general interest.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et. al. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court confirmed an ex-parte order that prohibited Amazon entities from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court aimed at blocking InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The court rejected Amazon's application to review the order, finding that InterDigital's RAND declaration to the ITU-T did not give Amazon a contractual right to an interim license enforceable in the UK, and that the UPC's jurisdiction over European patents in its territory had to be respected.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA a. o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 353 901, in which Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed a patent infringement action against three Vantiva entities, and the Vantiva defendants filed a nullity counterclaim against Atlas Global Technologies GmbH and Atlas Global Technologies LLC. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the main action and the defendants withdrew the counterclaim, with both sides consenting to the respective withdrawals. The parties agreed on cost allocation and requested the court to formally terminate the proceedings and order a partial refund of court fees.
UPL Limited And Anr v.Royal Agro Tech And Ors
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants for infringement related to agricultural chemicals, specifically concerning an Indian Patent and Trade Mark. The court granted several applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, while directing the execution of Local Commissions to inspect infringing products.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of their patent (IN 339964) by Defendant's products. The court, while considering an application for interim injunction, raised serious doubts regarding the authenticity and timing of the technical expert affidavit provided by the Plaintiffs.
Astellas Institute For Regenerative Medicine v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting their patent application for 'Improved methods of producing RPE cells and compositions of RPE cells'. The core dispute centered on whether the invention, which uses human pluripotent cells to produce RPE cells, violated Section 3(b) of the Patents Act due to ethical concerns about embryo destruction. The court upheld the rejection order.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. v.Dindayal Ayurved Bhawan.
Dindayal Industries Ltd. appealed against an order that dismissed its application for interim injunction, alleging that the respondents were infringing on its trademarks and engaging in passing off. The appellant claimed to be a long-standing user of the 'DINDAYAL' mark since 1927, possessing substantial goodwill and numerous registered trademarks. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, concluding that refusing interim relief would cause irreparable injury to its reputation.
Somany Ceramics Limited v.Hsil Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by Somany Ceramics Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific registered device mark, 'A Somany Enterprise,' belonging to Hsil Limited. The core ground for the relief was non-use, as the applicant successfully argued that the respondent had never commercially used the impugned mark in relation to the goods specified under Class 16. Given the respondents' concession regarding the lack of commercial use, the court directed the removal of the mark from the Trade Marks Register.
Novartis Ag v.Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.
Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao seeking protection against the misappropriation of his personality and publicity rights. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and statutory notices for certain defendants. Furthermore, the court issued summons to specific online retailers found to be unauthorizedly selling merchandise bearing the plaintiff's likeness, allowing the suit to proceed toward an injunction against infringement.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.Krishna Alias Tinku & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
Government Emarketplace v.Ankit Jain & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an urgent interim injunction in favor of Government Emarketplace (GeM), a non-profit public procurement platform. The court directed domain registrar Godaddy.com to suspend specific infringing domain names and required social media intermediary Amazon to remove links hosting unauthorized webpages. This decisive order protects the GeM trademark against online infringement, setting a strong precedent for digital rights enforcement in India.
M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation v.Goramal Hari Ram Limited
The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.
M/S Tej Ram Dharam Paul v.Sunder Lal Goyal & Anr.
The Delhi High Court accepted a compromise reached between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in their suit concerning intellectual property rights. The settlement mandates that Defendant No. 1 must suffer a decree of permanent injunction and undertake to withdraw specific trademark applications. The court formally decreed the suit based on these terms, effectively resolving the dispute through mutual agreement.
Bennett Coleman And Company Limited (Sr) v.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification, expunging a trademark registration held by Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. The petitioner, Bennett Coleman And Company Limited, successfully argued that the registered mark had never been genuinely used since its inception in 2007. Relying on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court found that the continued presence of the unused mark constituted a wrongful and erroneous entry, thereby favoring the petitioner's claim to prior rights.
SNV Aviation Private Limited v.Alaska Aviation Academy Private Limited and Others
SNV Aviation Private Limited successfully secured critical interim relief against defendants accused of impersonating the company to run fraudulent job scams. The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunctions and directed immediate action against digital assets, including suspending infringing domain names like akasaairltd.com. Furthermore, the court mandated financial institutions and telecom providers to disclose KYC details and block bank accounts and UPI IDs linked to the perpetrators, providing robust protection against trademark misuse and fraud.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.
Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:12:26 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:41 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:39:21 +01'00'
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communi
Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:11:06 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:08 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:37:23 +01'00'
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.
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.