IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 44 of 140 · 4,175 total
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1. The order addresses an application by Inventronics GmbH (the applicant for file inspection) to suspend proceedings regarding file access. Given ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court ordered the file inspection proceedings suspended by agreement of all parties until a request for resumption is filed. The plaintiff's related request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des einheitlichen Patentgerichts verkündet am 22. August 2025 betreffend EP 2 387 547 B1 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Zweckangaben in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch definieren eine Vorrichtung regelmäßig dahingehend, dass sie geeignet sein muss, für die
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia submits an affidavit containing Wayback Machine screenshots of ceramic vape cartridges to show prior art against U.S. Patent 11,235,110. The evidence aims to prove the patent’s claims lack novelty.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,235,110 covering a vaporizer device for psychedelic compounds, asserting that the device, formulations, and isotopomer claims are fully anticipated or obvious by extensive prior‑art references.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR involving Topsoe and CASALE regarding patent 11286168. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01441 after a merits review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from dealing in products that infringe their patent (IN 294424) related to Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those for document production and exemption from mediation. In the main application for interim injunction, the Defendant provided an undertaking not to launch infringing products.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. The dispute centers on MediaTek's request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements, and Huawei's corresponding request under Rule 262A to classify certain information as confidential or strictly confidential. The order addresses the protection of confidential information in connection with Huawei's submission responding to the production request, referencing a confidentiality agreement between the parties.
LIFE 365 S.R.L., LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. v.Respondent
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet concernant une demande de retrait (R. 265 RdP) d’une demande d’intervention (R. 313 RoP) rendue le 21 août 2025 DEMANDERESSES LIFE 365 S.R.L., Via Alexander Fleming, 22 - 47122 Forlì, Italie représentée par Michele De
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request by the defendant HMD Global Oy to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a patent infringement action brought by Fraunhofer. The court denied the extension, holding that the defense deadline under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already calibrated to permit fact-finding and internal coordination, including across vacation periods, and that the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations does not justify additional time where license offers and counter-offers have been on the table for years.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. v.Respondent
This Order of the Court of Appeal concerns Yealink's request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese for an upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. The Court of Appeal addressed whether simultaneous interpretation should be ordered at the Court's expense or whether Yealink should be permitted to engage interpreters at its own cost. The Court held that the mere fact that a defendant is based in a country where the language of proceedings is not official does not justify ordering simultaneous interpretation, and that company officials' difficulties in following proceedings also do not generally warrant such interpretation.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in revocation proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 944 067 B1. The Central Division had previously revoked the Defendant's patent and ordered the Defendant to provide security for the Claimant's legal costs, which was duly deposited. Following a settlement agreement between the parties, both jointly requested the release of the security to the Claimant, and the Court granted the request by applying Rule 352.2 of the Rules of Procedure by analogy.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order disregarding a post-hearing brief filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. following the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. The court held that under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no basis for filing further pleadings after the close of written proceedings without prior court approval, and this applies even more so after the oral hearing when the case is ready for decision. The court further held that there is no need to respond in writing to the court's introduction after the oral hearing, as any such response should have been made during the hearing itself.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The plaintiff, Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), is suing Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel. The order addresses the conclusion of the interim procedure under Rules 104 and 110(1) of the Rules of Procedure, setting out the court's preliminary view on the relevant skilled person and the feature breakdown of patent claim 1 to be used at the oral hearing.
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.