IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 71 · 2,122 total
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Motherkind Pharma Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction favoring Mankind Pharma Limited against Motherkind Pharma Private Limited. The court found that Motherkind's use of 'MOTHERKIND' prima facie amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, given its similarity to Mankind's well-known marks ('MANKIND' and 'KIND') in the pharmaceutical sector. This preliminary order restrains the Defendant from using the infringing mark until further proceedings.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Caleb Suresh Motupalli v.Controller of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's order rejecting his patent application based on various grounds, including lack of enablement, ambiguity in claims, and non-patentability. The High Court examined these issues, concluding that the invention lacked a demonstrable technical effect and failed to meet statutory requirements.
Dabur India Limited v.Patanjali Ayurved Limited And Anr.
Dabur India Limited filed a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction, alleging that Patanjali Ayurved Limited disparaged Dabur Chyawanprash and the entire market class through its advertisements (TVC and Print Advertisements) for 'Patanjali Special Chyawanprash'. The court heard interim applications regarding these ads.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
In a significant ruling for the plastics industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris dismissed Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll's infringement action against the First group. The case centered on the 'Connecto®invisible' hydraulic gutter grille technology (EP3272938). Despite detailed claims regarding manufacturing and offering infringing products, the court found no evidence of literal or equivalent infringement. Furthermore, RPN was ordered to cover the respondents' legal costs provisionally.
Dyson Technology Limited v.SharkNinja Europe Limited; SharkNinja Germany GmbH
Dyson Technology Limited initiated an infringement action against SharkNinja Europe and Germany concerning EP patent 2 043 492. In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division in Munich granted a suspension of both the main infringement proceedings and the associated counterclaim. This decision reflects a strategic pause agreed upon by both parties, allowing time for further negotiation or legal strategy before the merits of the case are addressed.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A, Motocard Bike, S.L., Omnia Retail S.R.L.
This UPC decision addressed a confidential information dispute within a larger security for costs proceeding, rather than an infringement claim. Dainese sought to restrict access to its financial data, citing trade secret protection under Article 58 UPCA. The Court ultimately found a balance between protecting the claimant's sensitive information and ensuring the defendants could adequately exercise their right of defense. Access was granted to specific individuals, including Ms. Caterina Buccimazza, subject to strict confidentiality obligations.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC addressed the critical issue of protecting confidential information within an ongoing infringement action involving Sun Patent Trust and Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court meticulously defined what constitutes 'Confidential' and 'Highly Confidential' data related to the patent EP3407524. This order sets stringent access controls, limiting unredacted documents only to authorized legal counsel and experts of the Defendants, thereby balancing the need for full disclosure in litigation with the imperative of protecting trade secrets.
Agco International GmbH v.Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited
The Madras High Court heard multiple Original Applications filed by Agco International GmbH against Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited concerning trademark infringement, domain name misuse, and interference with licensed intellectual property. Despite the detailed prayers seeking interim injunctions to protect trademarks like 'Massey Ferguson' and associated livery, all parties subsequently filed withdrawal memos. Consequently, the court closed all related Original Applications without issuing a substantive judgment on the merits of the IP disputes.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding cost allocation following a default judgment in a revocation action. The applicant sought to recover costs related to their attempt to set aside the initial default ruling. The Court ruled that because setting aside a default is an internal procedural remedy, these specific costs should not be determined separately but must be integrated into the final cost assessment of the main proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court granted a stay of revocation proceedings following an appeal by Juul Labs against a prior finding. The request was based on parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal which had been accelerated. Given that the EPO proceedings were expected to conclude rapidly relative to the scheduled UPC hearing, the court ruled in favor of granting the stay, allowing both parties to await the final outcome at the EPO.
Indmoney Tech Private Limited & Anr. v.Ashok Kumar And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued further directions in the trademark infringement suit filed by Indmoney Tech Private Limited. The court recognized that unknown entities were using the 'INDmoney/' trademarks across various digital platforms—including websites, WhatsApp, Telegram, and mobile apps—to defraud customers with fraudulent stock advice. The judgment specifically directed platform providers (like WhatsApp/Telegram operators) and financial institutions to take immediate action against the identified infringing accounts and bank details, reinforcing the court's stance on protecting brand integrity in the digital age.
M/s.STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED v.WHEELS INDIA LIMITED
The petitioner filed a Transfer Original Petition seeking revocation of Patent No. 269220, granted to Wheels India Limited for 'Vehicle Wheels Having Non-Constant Thickness Rims'. The petitioner raised grounds including lack of novelty and inventive step. The court examined these grounds and partially revoked the patent while maintaining certain claims subject to amendment.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.Krishna Alias Tinku & Anr.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.
BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This UPC Order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech group against Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute in an infringement action. The Court found that the requested confidentiality protections were redundant because the relevant documents and information were already covered by a pre-existing Confidentiality Order from March 2025. This decision reinforces the principle that existing protective measures within the UPC framework remain valid even if new applications are filed.
National Engineering College v.All India Council for Technical Education
This case involved a dispute between National Engineering College and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regarding the college's right to use 'National' in its name. The petitioner challenged AICTE regulations that sought to prohibit such usage, particularly those applied retrospectively. The Madras High Court ultimately ruled in favor of the college, holding that the regulatory notification was invalid and could not be applied retroactively, thereby protecting the institution's established identity.
M/S Swagath v.Dhanturi Hari Shankar & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed two matters in this order. First, the petitioner was permitted to file additional documents under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Second, the court initiated proceedings regarding a petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'SWAGATH' (Registration No. 2037599). Notice has been issued to the respondents, who are required to file their replies within six weeks, setting the stage for further litigation on the core issue of trademark validity.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests from Samsung (Defendants) to introduce new evidence and pleadings related to ongoing license negotiations and third-party agreements. The Court dismissed the broad requests for further written submissions and production orders, citing concerns over 'ping-pong' effects and the timing of the evidence. However, recognizing the dynamic nature of FRAND licensing, the Court granted a limited window for parties to submit briefs on new developments before the oral hearing, ensuring that all relevant facts can be considered during the merits phase.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision from the Mannheim Local Court confirms the withdrawal of an infringement suit brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and OROPE Germany GmbH. The case, which involved EP 2 568 724, was settled amicably between the parties after a final judgment had already been issued. The court formally closed the proceedings, confirming that each party would cover its own legal expenses.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a penalty application filed by Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks following an attempted inspection (saisie) under UPC authority. The Claimant sought penalties because the Defendant allegedly refused to grant access to monitor its network security systems. However, the Court found that the scope of the original inspection order was limited strictly to what was physically present at the premises. Since the requested technical setup and documentation were not available in the sales office, the Defendant's non-compliance could not constitute a breach, leading to the rejection of the penalty request.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH
This decision addresses the procedural competence regarding the withdrawal of a cost determination application in an ongoing UPC case. Although the main infringement and revocation proceedings have moved to the Appeal Court, the specific procedure for determining costs remains under the jurisdiction of the court of first instance's Rapporteur. The court confirmed its original authority to grant the request to withdraw the cost claim, thereby closing that phase of the litigation.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.INSULET Corporation
This procedural order addressed a claim for cost reimbursement filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. following the rejection of its preliminary injunction application against Insulet Corporation. The Court ruled that because the underlying patent litigation was proceeding to the merits, costs related to the initial PI phase could not be settled separately. The ruling reinforces the principle that cost assessment must align with the final outcome of the entire case, preventing fragmented financial assessments in complex IP disputes.
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order in the UPC infringement action between 10x Genomics and Curio Bioscience addresses the availability of technical samples for inspection. The Court noted the Defendant's willingness to provide samples but pointed out that the timing was late, as no reasons were provided after written proceedings closed. The matter is now pending a decision by the Panel during the oral hearing.
Under Armour, Inc v.Pro-Train Sports Llp & Ors
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Under Armour against Pro-Train Sports LLP, the Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation. Despite the plaintiff alleging identical trade and business operations, including the use of similar logos (a bull), the court opted not to grant the exemption. Instead, it referred the matter to Pre-Institution Mediation, setting a date for January 15, 2025.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Munich allowed PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG to withdraw its infringement claim against Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH. This withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties as part of an out-of-court settlement. Although the merits were not decided, the court issued a detailed cost allocation, refunding fees to both sides based on the timing of the withdrawals.
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.