IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 37 of 64 · 1,915 total
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
Smt. Reena Paltani And 3 Others v.M/S K.K. Tobacco Co. And 2 Others
The Allahabad High Court set aside a Commercial Court's rejection of an interim injunction application in a trademark infringement suit involving tobacco products. The petitioners argued that the respondents were infringing their registered trademarks ('KK99'/'KK 99') despite having a different registration ('V99K'). The court allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation and directed the lower court to urgently decide on the interim injunction and receiver appointment, recognizing the urgency of preventing further infringement.
woodland aero club pvt ltd v.ms narayan enterprises anr
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. sued M/S Narayan Enterprises for unauthorized use of its registered trademarks 'WOODLAND' and the Tree Mark Logo on jackets, causing likelihood of confusion among consumers. Defendant No. 1 was selling infringing jackets at a significantly lower price than Woodland’s genuine products.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a recent procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed scheduling issues in an infringement action brought by Maxell against Samsung. The court granted a request to harmonize deadlines for all defendants, setting a uniform service date and subsequent deadline for filing the Statement of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's ability to manage complex multi-defendant litigation across various jurisdictions efficiently.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U.
This procedural order addressed an application by a UPC representative firm seeking public access to the file of a concluded revocation action. The Court balanced the general interest in transparency and professional advice against confidentiality concerns, ultimately granting broad access while redacting personal data. The decision highlights the nuanced application of public access rules (R. 262.1(b) RoP) even after proceedings have been terminated by agreement.
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.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, Kaufland Marketplace GmbH, Lidl Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request to disregard parts of the Defendants' rejoinder regarding patent validity. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), ruling that submissions must not exceed the scope permitted for the specific pleading stage. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural discipline within the UPC framework, preventing parties from introducing extraneous arguments or summaries outside the prescribed written procedure.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a cost allocation dispute following a prior judgment where FUJIFILM sued Kodak for infringement and simultaneously faced revocation counterclaims. The court examined extensive claims by Kodak regarding high legal fees, expert witness expenses, and travel costs incurred during the complex proceedings. While some specific travel and accommodation costs were deemed reimbursable after reduction, the Court firmly rejected the claim for representation costs related to the cost procedure itself, setting clear boundaries on what is recoverable in summary cost decisions.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Femilab Healthcare & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an application seeking permanent injunction to restrain Femilab Healthcare from infringing Patent No. 268846 related to Empagliflozin and its formulations. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Novartis v. Natco), observed that the patent in issue had already expired. Consequently, the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a major pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and various generic competitors (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) sets the stage for the final stages of litigation. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the oral hearing, focusing heavily on complex issues like obviousness related to clinical trial data. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by defendants regarding the drafting style of claimant's briefs.
Mr.Amit Agarwal / M/s.Seetu Orbit Cable India Pvt. Limited v.Mr.Shiv Kumar Gupta / M/s.ADL Orbit Cable (India)
The Madras High Court addressed applications concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the brand ORBIT/ADL ORBIT. While upholding the interim injunction against the use of the registered trademarks, the court recognized the potential hardship caused by immediate cessation of the trading name. Consequently, it granted a 60-day grace period for the defendant to transition its branding, balancing public interest in preventing consumer confusion with commercial viability.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Court ruled that, as the defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State participating in the UPCA, the Milan Local Division possessed universal jurisdiction. Crucially, the court affirmed its competence to hear claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC system, specifically in Spain. This decision reinforces the broad territorial reach of the UPC when dealing with defendants within the Union.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
Ashim Kumar Ghosh v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by Ashim Kumar Ghosh against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the mark 'SoEasy'. The core issue was whether the mark, used for instructional and teaching material, possessed sufficient distinctiveness. The court ruled that 'SoEasy' is a suggestive mark—requiring consumers to use imagination and thought to connect it to educational products—and therefore qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Europe Limited
In a significant ruling on provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal affirmed the validity and infringement likelihood of EP 2 152 073 concerning herbicide compositions. The court confirmed that the balance of interests favored granting an injunction against Sumi Agro. Furthermore, it clarified procedural aspects, specifically rejecting the requirement for Syngenta to provide security for enforcement, which is a key relief for patent holders seeking immediate protection.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
HP Development Company successfully obtained provisional measures and a preliminary injunction against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. in the UPC regarding infringement of its 'Logic circuitry' patent (EP 3 835 965 B1). The case, filed under R. 206 RoP, targeted counterfeit printer cartridges (types 924 and 937) sold by both German and Chinese defendants. Crucially, the court also imposed significant penalty payments on the Chinese defendant to enforce compliance with the provisional measures, demonstrating a strong enforcement stance in UPC proceedings.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
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 v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants sets the stage for intensive litigation. The core dispute revolves around the inventive step of EP 2 493 466, specifically concerning the reasonable expectation of success derived from clinical trials (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled extensive expert testimony and oral hearings to allow the panel to address highly technical factual questions related to oncology drug development before making a final decision on validity and infringement. This case highlights the UPC's capacity to handle deep scientific and medical complexities in patent disputes.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
Pc Laminations v.Sk Microworks Co Ltd & Ors.
The petitioner, Pc Laminations, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN437049. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to procedural matters like exemption from certified copies and permission to file additional documents.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the petition filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., directing the rectification of Trademark Registration No. 5849026 held by Marc Sanitation Pvt. Ltd. The court ordered that the goods and service details in Class 11 be amended to specifically reflect 'Bathroom and Sanitary fittings and accessories,' thereby limiting the scope of the trademark registration. This decision allows the petitioner to achieve a more precise definition of the registered goods, aligning with prior agreements.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
The Coca-Cola Company v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The Coca-Cola Company appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application for a superior beverage dispenser. The appeal argued that the rejection order failed to analyze the appellant's submissions distinguishing the invention from cited prior art. The High Court held that the Controller must pass a speaking order analyzing all elements, and consequently set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning costs determination in UPC case UPC_CFI_58/2024, Lionra Technologies Ltd. successfully petitioned for restoration of its previous status after missing a deadline under Rule 151 VerfO. The court accepted the argument that the oversight was an organizational error within the claimant's legal team, which fell outside the party's control. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural deadlines, especially those related to costs procedures, can be restored if the failure is attributable to circumstances beyond the party's reasonable influence.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE
This UPC decision addressed a challenge by VALINEA ENERGIE against an ex-parte evidence preservation order granted to TIRU regarding the patent EP3178578. VALINEA argued that TIRU breached its duty of loyalty and that the request was untimely, suggesting prior knowledge of the patented technology. The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that TIRU's urgency justified the initial ex-parte measure. Furthermore, the court denied VALINEA's attempt to increase the required security deposit.
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.