IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 64 · 1,915 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics addresses several key motions, including claim amendments and confidentiality. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, a crucial step allowing the claimant to adapt its legal strategy based on the defendant's recent submissions. While other requests were dismissed, this decision keeps the infringement and revocation proceedings alive as they move toward an Interim Conference.
OrthoApnea S.L. v.De heer [Name redacted]
This UPC decision addressed a complex costs procedure initiated by OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV against an individual respondent. The claimants sought to significantly increase the recoverable costs beyond the administrative ceiling of €38,000 due to high actual expenses. The Court partially granted the claim, setting the final cost award at €41,656.64 by applying its discretion within the established ceilings for representation and expertise. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural rules regarding costs and the limits set by administrative decisions in UPC proceedings.
Vidya Bhushan Jain v.Mohammed Younus Sheikh And Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning Trademark No. 605340 after finding that the core issue had been resolved by the parties. The court noted that the trademark renewal process was completed, with the mark being renewed for another ten years. Consequently, the High Court set aside an earlier order from the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and allowed the petitioner's trademark to continue subsisting in the Register.
Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute concerning the timely filing and recovery of costs in patent litigation. The appellant (Hanshow) sought an extension for its cost claim related to the appeal proceedings against VusionGroup. The court strictly upheld the procedural requirements, ruling that extensions are not available for missed deadlines under R. 151 VerfO. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to UPC timelines and clarifies the scope of costs recovery in summary cost proceedings.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Grundfos Holding A/S sued Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. for infringing its patent covering a specialized heating circulation pump unit with electronic switching capabilities. The court found infringement, allowing Grundfos to pursue an injunction and damages against the respondent's sales in Germany, France, and Italy. However, the defendant's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed, highlighting the strict procedural hurdles required for introducing new prior art during litigation.
MANN+HUMMEL GmbH v.SOTRAS - S.R.L.
In this UPC case concerning EP 2 762 219, MANN+HUMMEL GmbH sought interim measures against SOTRAS - S.R.L. However, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to a request for withdrawal of the application. The Local Division allowed the withdrawal, confirming that no legitimate interest was shown by the respondent in having the case decided. Although the main action was dropped, MANN+HUMMEL successfully secured a refund of 60% of its court fees.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost assessment application filed by SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH against Tiroler Rohre GmbH following the withdrawal of an interim measures request. The court found the claim admissible and granted the recovery of costs for the first instance, totaling 84,033.76 EUR. While the respondent argued that the fees were excessive, the court allowed minor reductions based on specific objections but ultimately upheld the majority of the claimed expenses.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC decision addressed an infringement claim concerning color-and-light mixing optics used in outdoor display boards. The court granted the injunction, compelling the respondent to remove the infringing products from distribution or arrange their destruction. However, the plaintiff's request for public disclosure of the ruling was rejected, emphasizing that such publication requires a strong interest that outweighs potential harm to the defendant. This case provides clear guidance on the scope of injunctive relief and the stringent requirements for court-ordered publicity in UPC proceedings.
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft v.ITCiCo Spain S.L.
This UPC decision addresses procedural applications concerning rectification and cost allocation following a decision by default. The court established strict criteria for rectifying judicial orders, emphasizing that such corrections must be limited to clear clerical errors or obvious slips, not substantive omissions like the failure to address costs. Furthermore, the panel ruled that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy and does not require its own merits-based cost determination. The costs incurred in this phase must instead be assessed within the main proceedings.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel a. o.
In this UPC case concerning egg packaging technology (EP 2 755 901 B1), Hartmann Packaging A/S sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH for infringement and simultaneously filed a revocation counterclaim. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding no violation of the patent rights. Crucially, the court also rejected the revocation counterclaim, affirming the validity of the patent while providing important guidance on interpreting 'the same invention' under Article 87 EPC.
Proprietect L P v.The Controller Of Patents
Proprietect L P appealed a rejection order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning its application for a foam laminate product used in vehicle interiors. The appellant argued that the rejection was non-speaking, failed to consider their submissions, and introduced new grounds (Section 10(5)) at the final stage, violating natural justice. The High Court agreed, setting aside the order and remanding the matter.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
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.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. v.Unnamed (Verletzungsklägerin)
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning the provision of security for legal costs in an infringement case. The court found that while the respondent (the defendant) faced financial strain, evidenced by an operating loss, they were still capable of providing the required security deposit. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to furnish €62,600.00 in security, rejecting the claimant's initial demand for a much higher sum.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL; Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. filed an application for provisional measures against the various Sophia Genetics entities concerning four European patents (EP 3766986 et al.). Since the defendants failed to provide legal representation promptly, the UPC Court of First Instance issued a procedural order setting the date for an oral hearing on December 12, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to rapid case management in urgent provisional measures proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order to protect confidential information during proceedings related to EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified detailed manufacturing processes, commercial negotiation records, pricing data, and expert witness statements as trade secrets. This decision underscores the importance of robust confidentiality measures within UPC litigation, allowing parties to safeguard sensitive business intelligence.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
Archian Foods Private Limited v.Chaudhary Beverage & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Archian Foods Private Limited against Chaudhary Beverage & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions to the Plaintiff, including waiving pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of interim relief. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an interim injunction through the appointment of a Local Commissioner, enabling site inspection and seizure of infringing products related to the 'LAHORI ZEERA' brand.
Mr. Piruz Khambatta & Anr. v.Franchise India Brands Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application concerning the alleged contempt of a prior injunction order. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants continued using the trademarks 'Rasna' and 'Rasna Buzz' despite the expiration of their Master License Agreement (MLA). While the court noted the dispute over a purported new agreement, it primarily directed the Defendants to file their reply within two weeks. Crucially, the Court reiterated that the existing injunction order must be strictly complied with.
Gsp Crop Science Ltd v.Gilehri Organics & Ors.
The Plaintiff, Gsp Crop Science Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the infringement of its Indian Patent (IN'568) related to a synergistic formulation of Pyriproxyfen and Diafenthiuron. The court passed an order addressing various interlocutory applications, including granting exemption from pre-institution mediation and allowing for urgent interim relief measures.
Mylan Laboratories Limited v.Celator Pharmaceuticals Inc & Ors.
Mylan Laboratories Limited filed an appeal against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 rejecting the Post-Grant Opposition filed by Mylan against Patent No. IN 315447 held by Respondent No. 1. The court issued notice and directed parties to file replies and rejoinders.
Hardwyn India Limited And Anr v.Rajenndra Engitech Llp
The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Hardwyn India Limited and Rajenndra Engitech LLP, focusing on the use of the mark 'HARDVIN' which was deemed deceptively similar to 'HARDWYN'. The court accepted a comprehensive undertaking from the defendant, requiring them to cease using the impugned mark and initiate its withdrawal from the Trademark Registry. Consequently, an ad interim injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, recognizing the mutual interest in resolution, both parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre.
M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP v.M/s. NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, M/s. SANGEETHA CATERERS AND CONSULTANTS LLP, finding that the defendant's use of 'NELLAI SANGEETHAS Pure Veg Restaurant' constituted deceptive similarity and trademark infringement. The court held that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks, especially since both parties operate in the identical restaurant business. Consequently, the suit was decreed with permanent injunctions against further misuse and an order for the destruction of all infringing materials.
M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement and revocation action against CUPOWER for allegedly infringing its Boost-PFC circuit patent (EP 2 011 218 B1) used in LED drivers. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision underscores the high bar required to prove infringement or successfully challenge a granted European patent within the unified system.
Kylin Sanitary Technology (XIAMEN) Company Limited v.Union of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application (202034009705) as abandoned. The petitioner argued that the delay was due to COVID-19 and negligence of the Indian Patent Agent, not intentional inaction. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the mandatory timelines under the Patents Act must be complied with, and the petitioner demonstrated an indolent attitude.
Exotic Mile v.Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court reviewed an interim injunction granted by a Single Judge in a trademark infringement and passing off suit. While the court affirmed the injunction against Exotic Mile's use of certain specified marks, it quashed the restriction on the tag line "UNPLUG YOURSELF" because the original plaintiff had not sought that specific restraint. Furthermore, the court clarified that since the mark GOBOULT was never subject to an injunction, Exotic Mile remains free to use it unless a separate cause of action is filed.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses procedural motions regarding the exchange of further written pleadings in a patent infringement and revocation case involving EP 2 755 901 B1. The court ruled against both the claimant (Hartmann Packaging A/S) and the respondents (Omni-Pac GmbH). The ruling underscores strict adherence to the UPC's procedural timetable, requiring parties to utilize their allotted submissions or formally request additional pleadings under R. 36 VerfO with strong justification.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
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.