IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 189 · 5,670 total
Baldev Raj v.Brothers Tobacco & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted Baldev Raj limited permission to introduce registered trademark certificates into the ongoing passing off suit against Brothers Tobacco. This relief was contingent upon a strict clarification: the Petitioner could not use these documents to convert the cause of action from passing off to infringement. The court emphasized that since the Petitioner possessed these registration details prior to framing issues, they must adhere strictly to the original claim of passing off.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Ambush Cement Private Limited
Ultratech Cement Limited filed an application seeking permission from the Delhi High Court to challenge the validity of trademarks registered by Ambush Cement Private Limited. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file their respective replies and rejoinders within specified timelines. This order sets the stage for a formal challenge to the defendants' trademark registrations before the Joint Registrar.
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited appealed the rejection of its trademark application for 'PROMAX' under Class 31, arguing that it was a prior user and should be accepted despite objections based on similarity to existing marks. The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant’s mark was deceptively similar to cited marks already registered in the same class. The court emphasized that registering the single word 'PROMAX' would create an undue monopoly over a common formative mark.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC entered into a settlement that grants Ebury a royalty‑free license to several patents covering cross‑border payments, includes covenants not to sue, and mandates dismissal of the pending IPR and related lawsuit.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision that ordered review of an expired content‑delivery patent owned by Sandpiper CDN. The petition argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations doctrine and misread the district‑court record, making the decision an outlier.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. moved to withdraw its IPR petition after settling with Intercurrency Software LLC. The Board was asked to terminate the proceeding, which was unopposed and at an early stage.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
The PTAB denied Google’s petitions for Director Review of institution decisions in four IPRs against Sandpiper CDN, keeping the institutions intact.
Microsoft Corporation v.Sandpiper CDN, LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging Sandpiper CDN’s 9,762,692 patent covering CDN popularity‑based routing and content partitioning, asserting obviousness over Seed and Swildens references.
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. v.--
Ebury Partners UK Ltd. petitions the PTAB to invalidate 16 claims of Intercurrency Software’s ‘701 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art trading systems (Calo, Rude, Sellberg, Szoc, Davidowitz).
R P Scherer Technologies Llc v.The Patent Office of India
The petitioner challenged the rejection of its Indian Patent Application (No. 202127050600) by the Assistant Controller on grounds of lacking inventive step. The core issue was whether the claimed formulation for oral delivery of poorly permeable proteins/peptides was non-obvious over cited prior art. Given the technical nature, the Court appointed a Scientific Advisor to render an opinion.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an IPR on Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 patent covering hemostasis valves for aspiration catheters after finding a reasonable likelihood that Imperative Care will prevail on at least one of the nine challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care challenged Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and instituted inter partes review on all 18 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 B2 catheter aspiration patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim. The review covers all 15 claims and four obviousness grounds involving Garrison, Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 patent after finding Imperative Care likely to succeed on at least one claim, focusing on obviousness over Garrison, Laub, and Aklog references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after finding Imperative Care’s petition shows a reasonable likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care successfully instituted an IPR against Inari Medical's 11,969,333 B2 patent covering intravascular clot removal. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness over Laub, Garrison, and related references, and instituted review on all 36 challenged claims.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success, focusing on the definition of “filament” and its flexibility versus prior art.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd. v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Max India Investment Services Private Limited v.Union Of India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court stayed an order from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs that had directed petitioner, Max India Investment Services Private Limited, to change its name. The dispute arose because a respondent company claimed the petitioner's name was too similar to their registered trademarks ('MAX' and 'Max India Limited'). The court found that since the petitioner has been using the name incorporating 'Max India' since 2007, it established a prima facie case for interim relief. Furthermore, the parties were referred to mediation to explore an amicable resolution.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited Anr. v.Venuse Automobile
Hero Investcorp Private Limited filed a suit against Venuse Automobile alleging trademark infringement and passing off related to the 'HERO' brand. The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of the Plaintiffs, including an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with powers to inspect the Defendant's premises, seize infringing auto parts bearing the HERO marks, and ascertain the stock value, signaling strong initial support for the Plaintiff's claims.
Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd v.Union Of India
The Delhi High Court addressed a petition filed by Rajput Jewellers Pvt Ltd challenging an ongoing complaint lodged against it by a third party regarding trademark ownership. The petitioner sought interim relief to prevent adverse orders from the Regional Director, Northern Division. While dismissing the apprehension of arbitrary action, the court issued a crucial direction, mandating that the Regional Director must dispose of the Section 16(1)(b) complaint after thoroughly considering all submissions and granting a proper hearing to all concerned parties.
Prabin Kumar Shah v.Manoj Kumar Jagnani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court heard an application for rectification filed by Prabin Kumar Shah seeking cancellation of Trademark No. 1553036 in Class 30. The court noted that the respondent's mark appeared to be slavishly imitating the petitioner's mark. Given the respondent's proposal to change the impugned mark (in color and font), the Court granted them an opportunity to revise it, while also directing them to adhere to a prior binding decree from the District Court at Bokaro.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M/S Electrical Master
Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.
Super Milk Products Private Limited v.Pyare Lal Laxmi Narayan And Sons
The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for trademark infringement after the Franchise Agreement terminated. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was clandestinely using a deceptively similar brand name, 'Cuppa Kevanter', which led to passing off of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'Keventers'.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
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.