IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 64 · 1,915 total
Rajiv Mukul & Anr. v.Goutam Chand
In this ongoing trademark dispute, the court facilitated a potential settlement between the parties. The defendant indicated willingness to resolve the matter amicably while confirming the use of its registered trademark. The plaintiff agreed to review the defendant's new packaging and trademark before taking further action. Both sides were directed to meet within two weeks to discuss resolution, alongside procedural directions regarding proof of service.
Ericsson GmbH v.Motorola Mobility LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of a counterclaim for patent revocation filed by Ericsson against Motorola. Following an initial infringement action, Ericsson sought to withdraw its revocation claim and associated appeal after both parties agreed that there was no legitimate interest in the court proceeding. The Court granted the withdrawal based on the respondent's consent, effectively closing the case.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a procedural motion regarding deadlines in an appeal case involving ILME and Phoenix Contact, concerning patent EP 3 646 825. The court was asked to grant a three-week extension for one party's reply brief. Ultimately, the court granted only a minimal three-day extension, emphasizing the need for efficient proceedings while maintaining procedural balance.
Dainese S.p.A. v.ALPINESTARS S.p.A., ALPINESTARS RESEARCH S.p.A., OMNIA RETAIL S.R.L., HORIZON MOTO 95 - MAXXESS CERGY, ZUND.STOFF AUGSBURG, MOTOCARD BIKE, S.L.
This procedural order addresses a request by Dainese S.p.A. to protect confidential information related to a settlement agreement reached with one of the defendants (Defendant No. 4). The UPC Local Division affirmed that this document, which details the waiver of claims in the main infringement proceeding, qualifies as protected confidential information under Article 58 UPCA and relevant rules. Consequently, access to the unredacted version was severely restricted, highlighting the court's commitment to balancing transparency with the protection of sensitive commercial dealings.
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd v.Controller Of Patents and Designs and Another
A-1 Fence Products Company Pvt Ltd challenged an order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting their patent registration based on cited prior art. The court recognized the need for expert opinion to determine if the invention possessed inventive steps over the existing prior art documents.
Novartis Ag v.Cdymax (India) Pharma Private Limited
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against the defendant for infringing their patent related to the compound Ribociclib, used in breast cancer treatment. The defendant allegedly started manufacturing and exporting the patented compound without authorization.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Appellant v.OrthoApnea S.L., Vivisol B BV
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request to withdraw an appeal concerning patent infringement proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal because the respondent did not object, thereby concluding the appellate phase. Crucially, while the appellant lost the procedural battle and must cover the costs incurred by the respondent, the specific monetary claim for damages was rejected, mandating that cost determination proceed via a separate procedure.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a procedural order, the Local Division in Mannheim rejected Keysight Technologies' request to stay infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 821 580. The defendant sought a stay based on a preliminary EPO opinion suggesting the patent suffered from added matter. However, the UPC court determined that the case was ripe for hearing and that waiting would cause undue delay, preferring to proceed with its own decision-making process.
Ashish Padia v.Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff, Ashish Padia, filed a commercial suit against Worldfa Exports Pvt Ltd alleging infringement of several registered IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyright related to various bowl products. The court issued an order settling the issues and directing both parties to file their respective lists of witnesses and evidence for further proceedings.
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited v.Miniso Life Style Private Limited
Travel Blue Products India Private Limited filed a suit against Miniso Life Style Private Limited for piracy of its registered design and passing-off concerning the 'Tranquility Neck Pillow'. The plaintiffs claimed that their distinctive neck pillow design, registered under number 281315, was being copied by the defendants in retail stores and online platforms. The court found a prima facie case based on the identical aesthetic appeal and visual similarity of the products, leading to the grant of interim relief.
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Navanath Ambre
Kerry Ingredients India Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals challenging the trial court's refusal to grant various ex-parte reliefs, including an interim injunction, appointment of a receiver, and disclosure of sensitive information from former employees (the respondents). The plaintiff alleged that these defendants had divulged confidential company data, client lists, and manufacturing processes after resigning. However, the Gujarat High Court dismissed all appeals, holding that the trial court committed no procedural or jurisdictional error in denying these urgent ex-parte orders.
Sanjay Mehra v.Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors.
In a significant trademark dispute, Sanjay Mehra successfully secured a decree against Deepak Kumar Sharma & Ors. through an amicable out-of-court settlement. The Defendants acknowledged that all rights to the 'SUPERON' mark belonged exclusively to the Plaintiff and agreed to cease all use of the mark, including preventing future registrations or similar usage. This resolution allows the suit to be decreed in favor of the Plaintiff while also granting a refund of court fees due to the early settlement.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel; Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in an infringement and revocation action concerning egg packaging (EP 2 755 901 B1). The court has meticulously defined the technical scope of the dispute for the upcoming oral hearing. Key focus areas include the interpretation of structural elements, such as the retainment projection and nose, and the specific manufacturing method involving balancing deformations during suction molding. This order sets a clear roadmap for both parties to prepare their arguments.
94 Cedar Properties And Trading Llp & Ors v.Shri Munish Thakur & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed petitions alleging wilful disobedience of undertakings related to a previous settlement concerning the trademark 'DROTIN' and its variants. The petitioner alleged that the respondent was using the deceptively similar mark 'DROTINXT' in medicinal preparations, constituting contempt of court. Consequently, the Court issued notice to the respondents, setting a date for their returnable appearance.
Ramesh Chandra Sahoo v.West Bengal State Food Processing and Horticulture Development Corporation Limited
The appeal challenged an order that treated a Geographical Indication (GI) rectification application as abandoned due to procedural delays. The appellant argued that he had taken steps within the permissible time limits, including obtaining extensions under the GI Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
In a procedural order concerning multiple infringement actions, the UPC Local Division Munich set key dates for the litigation between Sanofi and Zentiva. The court scheduled an Interim Conference via videoconference on July 17, 2025, followed by in-person oral hearings from October 14 to 17, 2025. This decision moves the complex pharmaceutical patent dispute closer to a substantive hearing, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments and counterclaims.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Louis Vuitton Malletier v.Ajay Aggarwal
The plaintiff, Louis Vuitton Malletier, filed a suit alleging that the defendant, Ajay Aggarwal, was manufacturing and selling goods using the deceptively similar trademark/label 'LV'. The court found that the defendant was violating the plaintiff's statutory and common law rights, leading to the decree in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S L Oreal v.M/S Loren Beautifiers Pvt Ltd And Ors
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S L Oreal seeking the cancellation of a similar mark, 'LOREN BOROHERB,' registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted evidence of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned registration be removed from the register, reinforcing the importance of active commercial use for maintaining a trademark.
SML Limited v.Mohan & Company &Anr.
The plaintiff, SML Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against Mohan & Company &Anr. for infringing its agricultural composition patent (IN'092). The infringement was alleged through the sale and marketing of products under the brand name 'Aladdin'.
M/S Sunhok Wheels Pvt. Ltd. v.The State Of West Bengal
Petitioners, manufacturers of e-rickshaws, challenged the non-issuance of registration certificates due to concerns raised by a private respondent claiming patent rights over the technology. The court reviewed previous orders and directed the Registering Authority to proceed with registrations, provided the vehicles are distinct from those subject to pending title suits.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In this procedural matter, TCL EUROPE SAS sought a two-week extension to respond to the Defence to Revocation and Application to Amend filed by Corning Incorporated in relation to EP 3 296 274. The Claimant argued that extensive technical testing related to prior art attacks necessitated more time. However, the UPC Court rejected the request, emphasizing that while complexity exists, the RoP provides sufficient time for patent cases, and the burden of proving 'special circumstances' justifying an extension rests heavily on the requesting party.
Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. v.Smotect Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt. Ltd. against Smotect Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Defendants were using the Plaintiff's copyrighted label in promotional content, specifically an Instagram video, to portray the Plaintiff's product as harmful while promoting their own alternative. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from further use of the label and directed to take down the infringing videos within 72 hours.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Sankalp Recreation Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and others. The court found that the defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, such as 'SCHEZUAN CHUTNEY', infringed upon the plaintiff's registered trademark 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given that the products are edible goods, the Court adopted a stringent approach to prevent consumer confusion and potential health risks. The injunction restrains the defendants from using any identical or similar marks until further proceedings.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning the preservation and inspection of evidence in a medical technology dispute. The court ruled that if a defendant fails to utilize the provided CMS access code to comment on confidentiality interests after receiving an expert's detailed description, the applicant's right to proceed with disclosure is upheld. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely digital engagement by parties involved in UPC proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
Stromag Gmbh v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Mark
Stromag Gmbh appealed the rejection of its patent application, 'HYDRAULICALLY ACTUATABLE DISK BRAKE AND AZIMUTH DRIVE', which was denied primarily due to a lack of inventive steps. The appellant argued that the rejection order failed to provide sufficient reasons and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable for lacking reasoned analysis, setting it aside and remanding the matter.
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.