IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 71 · 2,122 total
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a cost application filed by Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft following a revocation action that resulted in a default judgment against them. The court ruled that the procedural step of seeking to set aside the default judgment is an internal remedy and cannot independently generate a costs award. Instead, the costs associated with this specific procedural challenge must be integrated into the cost assessment of the main proceedings (the original revocation action). This ruling clarifies the scope of cost claims in UPC procedures involving interlocutory remedies.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court seeking to set aside a previous order and obtain a patent for application number 202117018914. However, the appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal due to an inadvertent error in filing.
Cellectis v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Cellectis appealed a refusal order by the Controller of Patents regarding its patent application for a method involving T-Cells. The appeal sought permission to file amended claims and complete specification. The court examined whether these amendments were permissible under Section 59 of the Patents Act.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application regarding simultaneous interpretation in a patent infringement case. The claimant, Dolby International AB, sought judicial assistance to ensure their non-German speaking representatives could participate fully in the oral hearing. Although the court agreed that interpretation was necessary for active participation, it refused to bear the costs of the service. Instead, the claimant is permitted to hire an interpreter at their own expense, setting a clear precedent on the financial burden of language support in UPC proceedings.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
Novo Nordisk As v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed an order passed by the learned Single Judge regarding an interim application in a patent dispute. The respondents argued they had a license to manufacture but not sell the impugned drug in India, reserving the right to export. The High Court disposed of the appeal, advancing the date for further consideration on the issue of export.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
This matter before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division involves Andreas Gutzeit challenging a patent-related issue against The Controller General of Patents. The appellant raised a pure question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given the complexity and legal nature of the dispute, the court granted a final adjournment to allow both parties time to file their Written Notes of Submissions.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd v.Oura Health Oy & Anr.
Ultrahuman Healthcare Pvt Ltd filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Oura Health Oy for infringing Indian Patent No. IN 549915, which covers an electronic ring for health monitoring. The court dismissed the suit because the Plaintiff willfully failed to disclose crucial orders from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) dated 18.04.2025 and 21.08.2025, which found infringement by the Plaintiff's products in the US market.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a procedural order, the UPC granted Microsoft Corporation's request to keep detailed legal invoices and billing information confidential during infringement proceedings against Suinno Mobile. The court found that this data, which details hours spent and fees paid, constitutes highly sensitive business information revealing corporate strategy and financial commitment. While granting confidentiality access only to specific counsel, the Court declined to impose a fixed penalty for non-compliance.
Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. v.Madhu Mittal & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Mittal & Ors. seeking the rectification or revocation of an impugned trademark registration (Application No. 1880542) in Class 35, which was granted to Respondent No. 1. The petitioners initially sought various interim injunctions and reliefs against multiple respondents, but subsequently withdrew claims against certain parties. The Court proceeded by deleting the withdrawn respondents and issued notice to the remaining parties, setting a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In this procedural order concerning enforcement security, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf ruled in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. The Applicant had initially deposited EUR 2 million to secure a preliminary injunction but subsequently obtained and provided an equivalent bank guarantee. The Court found that the Applicant had a legitimate interest in exchanging the deposit for the bank guarantee due to logistical and economic reasons. Consequently, the Court ordered the repayment of the original security deposit.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Greenland Trading Company
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Wellness Company, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off against Greenland Trading Company. The court recognized 'HIMALAYA' as a well-known mark due to its extensive global use since 1930. Given the potential for consumer confusion in the health and wellness sector, the court restrained the defendant from using deceptively similar marks until further hearing.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
University of Washington v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The University of Washington appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs regarding its patent application for methods using cell-free DNA to identify diseases. The original rejection was based on Section 3(i) of the Patents Act, arguing that the method found application in diagnostics. The High Court set aside this order, clarifying that Section 3(i) applies only if the invention 'per se disclose pathology' to a person skilled in the art.
Surya Nataraj Sharma v.Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. against an order that allowed the trademark suit to proceed. The core dispute involved whether the plaintiff, who was a booking agent, could maintain a trademark infringement and declaration suit despite alleged non-compliance with Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the question of trademark misuse is a matter for trial, and the plaintiff's right as a registered owner would not be negated by his status as an unregistered booking agent.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
Royal Coffee Works v.The Registrar Of Trademarks; Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited
Royal Coffee Works challenged the delay in processing its trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks, which was opposed by Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Limited regarding the use of 'tea' in the product description. The Kerala High Court addressed the petitioner's grievance concerning procedural delays. The court directed the Registrar to expedite the matter and pass appropriate orders on both the original trademark application and the opposition within a three-month timeframe.
Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v.Bali Ram Trading As Bali Kitchenware Industries and Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited's application to rectify and remove the trademark 'CROMPTON' registered by Bali Ram Trading. The court found that Crompton Greaves was the prior adopter, user, and well-known proprietor of the mark in Class 21 since 1943. Given the identical nature of the marks and the respondent's failure to contest the claims, the court ruled that the registration was contrary to the TM Act and liable for cancellation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
Malpani Enterprises v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Malpani Enterprises, directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to accept and proceed with its Notice of Opposition. The core issue was a technical glitch in the online filing portal which prevented the petitioner from meeting the deadline. Given that the respondent admitted the statutory period had not lapsed, the court held that a party should not suffer due to administrative or technical failures, thereby setting aside the rejection letter.
Mohammed Azam Trading As Noor Ahmed Mohd Azam v.Paramjeet Singh & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters: first, it condoned a minor delay in the petitioner's rectification petition. Second, the court initiated proceedings to cancel the trademark 'SARDARJI MASALE WALE NURY'. The court ordered notice to be served on all parties and directed the summoning of the complete registration record from the Trademark Registry for review.
Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani
Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.
Kent Ro Systems Ltd And Anr v.Dilip Kumar Shukla & Ors.
In this ongoing commercial suit concerning alleged infringement and passing off related to Kent RO's products, the court addressed a procedural challenge regarding one of the defendants. The defendant argued that the design right relevant to their involvement had expired, prompting the plaintiff to consider removing them from the case. While no final judgment was reached, the court issued several directions for the completion of pleadings and document exchange.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application by Dainese S.p.A. to limit its claims in an infringement action, specifically dropping one patent (EP'117) while maintaining another (EP'364). The court ruled that since the limitation was unconditional and only involved reducing the scope of the claim rather than withdrawing the entire case, Rule 263(3) RoP applied. This confirms that patentees can unilaterally limit their claims without penalty under this rule, ensuring procedural flexibility while deferring cost allocation until the main proceedings.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
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.