IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 34 of 140 · 4,175 total
Grasim Industries Limited And Anr. v.Omni Cement Private Limited And Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Grasim Industries Limited against Omni Cement Private Limited. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and permission to file additional pleadings. Crucially, the court directed a Local Commissioner to execute an inventory of goods, seize infringing stock under superdari, and ensure compliance with interim injunction procedures, setting the stage for the substantive dispute over the 'ULTRATECH' trademark.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Teleconmmunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MUNICH Issued on 18/09/2025 APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS): 1- Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. No. 18 Haibin Road, Wusha, Chang’an Town, Guangdong Provinc
TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD. v.Atlas Global Technologies GmbH
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH brought infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four TP-LINK entities concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The defendants filed a request on May 26, 2025 to stay the proceedings. With the agreement of both parties, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure until the EPO's decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings are concluded.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. v.Paneltouch Technologies, LLC
BOE Technology Group has filed an IPR petition challenging Paneltouch Technologies' 8,704,762 display device patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over several prior‑art references covering crack‑detection wiring in touch and display panels.
Kowa Company Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Kowa Company Ltd filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order issued by The Controller of Patents & Anr. on May 14, 2025, concerning Patent Application No. 201717010446.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Mather And Co Pvt Ltd filed a petition in the Delhi High Court seeking to enforce its registered trademark 'Mather' against entities registering deceptively similar corporate names. The petitioner argued that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) was failing in its duty to prevent serial infringement of their well-known brand name, which has been used since 1944. While the respondents initially raised a challenge regarding territorial jurisdiction, the court ordered notice to all parties and scheduled further hearings to examine the maintainability and merits of the trademark enforcement claim.
Aries Agro Limited & Anr. v.Indiamart Intermesh Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued several procedural orders in the trademark infringement suit filed by Aries Agro Limited against Indiamart Intermesh Limited. The court granted exemptions from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgent need for interim relief to prevent the suppression of infringing business operations. Furthermore, the court formally registered the plaint as a suit and set out detailed procedural timelines for filing written statements and replication, while also permitting the Plaintiffs to introduce additional documents.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Respondent
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_697/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 17/09/2025 APPLICANTS 1) Merz Therapeutics GmbH Eckenheimer Landstraße 100 60318 Frankfurt am Main - DE 2) Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC Unit 35/36, 6601 Six Forks Road, 4th Fl
Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Distribution International Ltd. v.Respondent
This order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant (Ona Patents SL) withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants (Apple entities) withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees paid in relation to the counterclaim for revocation, amounting to €8,000.
Washtower IP B.V., Washtower B.V. v.Respondent
This is a final enforcement order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute involving European Patent EP35227555, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following an earlier order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and authorized electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations into German and Polish.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Disney Electronic Content, Inc., BAMTech LLC / BAMTech Media / Disney Streaming Services (LLC) / Disney Streaming, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC / Disney Entertainment Operations LLC, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Interactive, Disne
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Alvotech petitions the PTAB to invalidate Regeneron’s ’036 patent covering high‑dose aflibercept eye‑treatment formulations, alleging obviousness and lack of written description. The petition relies on multiple Regeneron disclosures and external prior art. The Board has yet to rule.
Alvotech USA Inc. et al. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for the PGR proceeding (PGR2025-00085) involving Alvotech and Regeneron regarding patent 12168036. The petitioner met the likelihood of prevailing standard.
Parth Formulation Pvt Ltd v.Paam Biotech Private Limited
In a passing-off dispute concerning pharmaceutical packaging, the Delhi High Court found prima facie that the defendants' packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's. While the court noted the parties were open to settlement, it directed Paam Biotech to change its packaging color away from red and mandated Parth Formulation to submit sales data for the past three years.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This order concerns an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 567 731. Huawei agreed to produce most of the identified license agreements but objected to the production of two additional agreements relating exclusively to network infrastructure products. The Local Chamber Mannheim partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements listed on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 statement, while declining to order production of certain other agreements.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office (EPO)
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande d'annulation d'une décision prise par l'Office de rejet d'une demande d'effet unitaire (R. 97 RdP) rendue le 16 septembre 2025 EN-TETE • Conformément aux dispositions de la Règle 85(2) RdP,
Hisense USA Corp. et al. v.Light Guide Innovations LLC
Hisense has filed an IPR petition challenging Light Guide Innovations' 8,267,537 patent covering LED backlight units. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Liu, Roberts, and Liu‑660, and establishes standing to proceed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.One-E-Way, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01540 after reviewing the merits. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Upl Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
Upl Limited challenged an order rejecting its patent application, arguing that the rejection was based on lack of novelty/inventive step and violated principles of natural justice because expert evidence was ignored. The petitioner contended that the combination offered unexpected advantages in crop yield by controlling fungal diseases. The High Court found a serious infirmity in the impugned order due to procedural lapses and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Novartis Ag v.Controller Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Novartis Ag challenged the Controller's orders that deferred and then reserved decisions regarding post-grant opposition proceedings, specifically concerning a request for cross-examination of the opponent's experts in relation to Patent IN'518. The court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no merit in the Petitioner's plea and noting that the Petitioner had waived their right to cross-examine by conscious election.
Base Se v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the Deputy Controller's order rejecting parts of the 'Pesticidal Mixture' patent application. The appellant argued that the rejection violated natural justice and misinterpreted Section 3(h) of the Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, holding that a partial grant is untenable as it undermines the principle of unity of invention.
M/s.Darshan International v.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & Gi
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of M/s. Darshan International, allowing them to proceed with their trademark registration for 'Darshan Incense.' The court addressed the issue of non-receipt of the notice of opposition by the petitioner, which led to the abandonment of their application. Citing a similar precedent, the High Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to restore the application and permit the petitioner to file a counter statement, ensuring they receive a fair opportunity to defend their mark.
Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr v.Mr. Jaideep Singh Gusain & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Dominos Ip Holder Llc, restraining certain online entities (Defendants 9 and 10) from using marks deceptively similar to 'Domino's Pizza'. Furthermore, the court directed major aggregators, Zomato and Swiggy, to immediately take down specific listings containing infringing variations. This order establishes a strong preliminary stance against trademark infringement in the digital marketplace, while simultaneously setting out procedural steps for the full trial.
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.
Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Belgium v.Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva France, Zentiva, k.s.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
Dolby International AB v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 605 534 B1. The plaintiff Dolby International AB requested simultaneous interpretation from German to English for the oral hearing scheduled for October 16, 2025, arguing that its representatives did not speak German. The defendants indicated they did not require interpretation and opposed cost-sharing. The court found the request admissible, having been filed within the deadline under Rule 109.1 RoP and meeting the formal requirements of Rule 109(a)-(d) RoP.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi AB, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi A/S v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADAPHARM GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB, Sanofi Mature IP v.Dr Reddy's Srl, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. v.Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled eight related IPRs before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceedings on the parties' joint motion.
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.