IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 48 of 189 · 5,670 total
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (China), relating to the use of Remdesivir in treating MERS and SARS-COV-1 infections. The dispute centered on whether service of the statement of revocation on the patent's European representative (Lavoix) was valid and whether Gilead's request for default judgment was admissible. The Judge Rapporteur held that service was validly completed on 7 July 2025 when received by the patent representative in the CMS, declared the default judgment request inadmissible, and set 8 September 2025 as the deadline for the defendant to file a statement of defense.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Metrochem Api Private Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendant for infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers Ruxolitinib compounds used in JAKAVI tablets. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and appointing Local Commissioners to execute the interim injunction.
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.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai Ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 805 415. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) requested an extension of the deadline for filing their statement of defense from September 9, 2025 to October 9, 2025, citing pending laboratory analyses of foil material relevant to prior art and prior use defenses. The plaintiff (Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd.) opposed the extension. The court granted a one-week extension to September 16, 2025, finding the defendants' reasons partially justified but rejecting the longer extension as unnecessary.
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd. v.Sunlife Sciences Private Limited
Apex Laboratories Pvt.Ltd filed a suit against Sunlife Sciences Private Limited alleging multiple infringements, including the use of a deceptively similar trademark (ZIMCOFIT) and copyright violation concerning product labels for their pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and damages based on both Trademark Act and Copyrights Act provisions. Ultimately, the parties reached an amicable settlement, which was subsequently recorded by the Madras High Court, leading to the decree of the suit.
Novartis AG v.Vachichem International Private Limited
The Plaintiffs, Novartis AG, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Vachichem International Private Limited for infringing their Indian Patent No. 283133 covering Ribociclib. The court passed an order granting various exemptions and directing the appointment of a Local Commissioner to conduct an inventory and obtain accounts related to the alleged infringement.
Ashish Aggarwal v.M/S Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, engaged in sports activities under his trademarks 'X1' and 'X1 WAR OF X-TREME SPEED', filed a suit against the defendant for infringing these marks. The court found that the defendant was using an identical and deceptively similar mark ('X1') in relation to similar services without permission.
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited v.Standard Corporation India Limited
Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited filed a suit against Standard Corporation India Limited alleging infringement of its copyright and passing off. The plaintiff asserted ownership over the copyrighted drawings for its popular MF 245 DI tractor model and alleged that the defendant's Standard 348 tractor was an identical copy, either through direct copying or reverse engineering. The defense challenged the originality of the drawings and raised issues regarding the applicability of copyright law versus design registration.
Akums Drugs An Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Medivinc Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Akums Drugs against Medivinc Healthcare. The court granted exemptions for various procedural requirements, including pre-institution mediation and advance service to defendants. Crucially, the court allowed the plaintiffs' application for an ex parte ad-interim injunction, directing the appointment of Local Commissioners to secure evidence and prevent further infringement.
Mangalam Organics Ltd v.N Ranga Rao And Sons Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking injunction against the Defendant for alleged trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting significant differences in packaging and vending methods between the two products. While rejecting defenses of laches and acquiescence, the judge concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing the goods were those of the Plaintiff.
Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd & Anr. v.M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd
The Gujarat High Court addressed an appeal challenging a previous rejection of an injunction application in a trademark/passing off dispute between Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd and M/S Amul Industries Pvt Ltd. Recognizing the suit's commercial nature and high valuation (around 10 Crores), the court directed that the matter be treated as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Furthermore, it mandated the Trial Court to expedite the trial process and aim for a final decision by March 31, 2027.
Super-Max Ipr Holdings Ag Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Chirag Haresh Shah v.Suresh Kumar Garg And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a non-compliance issue where defendants failed to adhere to an earlier undertaking regarding the withdrawal of a specific trade mark application. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to process the withdrawal of trademark no. 4336864 in respect of 'SUPERMAC' within two weeks, provided all legal formalities are met. This order sets clear compliance timelines and mandates status reporting by the Trademark Registrar.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited & Others
This order concerns a request for rectification of a decision on costs issued on 21 July 2025 in proceedings involving patent EP 3 769 722. The Defendants sought rectification, arguing that the Court had omitted to expressly order the Claimant to bear 25% of the Defendants' costs in the counterclaim for revocation proceedings. The Court dismissed the requests, holding that the original cost allocation (Defendants to reimburse 100% of the Claimant's costs in the infringement action and 75% in the counterclaim for revocation, without deduction for any share of the Defendants' costs) was a permissible and equitable distribution under Article 69 UPCA and did not constitute an obvious slip.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in infringement proceedings regarding European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2. The court granted the respondents' request to classify certain information as confidential but rejected their objection to allowing the applicant's managing director, Mr. Tor Peters, access to that information, finding that the applicant's interest in responding to arguments based on the confidential data outweighed the respondents' interest in restricting access.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, in which the claimants (Jinko entities) and the defendants (LONGi entities and others) jointly requested a stay of both the infringement proceedings and the counterclaim for revocation. The court granted the stay because the parties were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive settlement agreement, ordering the claimants to notify the court of the outcome within six months.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
Caterpillar Inc v.Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd and Others
Caterpillar Inc filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Zhejiang Lifeng Machinery Parts Co Ltd for infringing Caterpillar's patents, designs, and trade marks related to fluid filter systems used in construction machinery. The court granted several interim applications, including exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service, and ordered the appointment of Local Commissioners to inspect and secure the alleged infringing stock.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents & Designs
Pharmacyclics Llc appealed the Deputy Controller's order rejecting its divisional patent application. The rejection was based on alleged scope changes and reliance on the parent application's claims. The High Court found that the divisional application should be treated as a substantive application, not bearing on the outcome of the parent, thus setting aside the impugned order.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH, Keysight Technologies, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court challenging the Mannheim Local Division's refusal to allow a further exchange of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in an infringement action concerning EP 3 821 580. Centripetal argued the refusal was manifestly wrong because it would prevent them from addressing Keysight's newly released AI Stack software, creating a risk of res judicata. The Court of Appeal held the request was admissible but denied it, finding the lower court's exercise of discretion was not manifestly wrong given the advanced stage of proceedings and the time taken by Centripetal to bring the request.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action and associated revocation counterclaim regarding European Patent EP 2 133 289. The plaintiff requested a six-day extension of its deadline for filing its infringement reply, response to the revocation counterclaim, and any patent amendment request, citing mutual vacation absences and competing deadlines. The court partially granted the request, extending the deadline only to September 5, 2025, rather than the requested September 9, 2025, to avoid subsequent deadlines falling on a weekend and conflicting with the scheduled interim hearing.
Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a preliminary objection filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. in a revocation action brought by Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. regarding European patent EP 3 926 698. Seoul Viosys argued that the Central Division lacked competence under Article 33(4) UPCA because the patent was already subject to a parallel infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between the same parties pending before the Court of Appeal, contending that Emporia UK was a 'straw company' for ex-pert klein GmbH. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that while the 'straw company' theory has a legal basis in EU law, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that Emporia UK was a straw company for ex-pert klein GmbH.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
AXA Power defends the USPTO Director's discretionary denial of Dabico's IPR petition, arguing the Director acted within broad authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and applied a holistic assessment. The Patent Owner contends the petitioner misapplies the review standard and seeks denial of the request for Director Review.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
The PTAB denied Dabico Airport’s request for Director Review of a denied institution decision, leaving AXA Power’s patent in force.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has petitioned the PTAB Director to overturn a denial of institution for its IPR against AXA POWER APS’s ‘169 patent. The petitioner argues the Director improperly applied a new “settled expectations” discretionary denial standard without notice. The request seeks vacatur of the decision or additional briefing.
Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.EXELIXIS, INC.
Azurity has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of Exelixis’s U.S. 12,128,039 patent, arguing obviousness over Brown combined with Kubo and Robinson references.
Dabico Airport Solutions Inc. et al. v.AXA POWER APS et al.
Dabico Airport Solutions has filed an IPR petition challenging all 22 claims of AXA Power’s preconditioned‑air‑unit patent, asserting that the claimed features are obvious over multiple HVAC prior‑arts. The petition cites Kreymer, Taras, Takahashi, Carrier and Lechmotoren as teaching the same elements.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
Cisco has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1 and 17 of WSOU’s U.S. 9,450,884 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and requests institution of the review.
Cyril Bath Company v.Controller Of Patents And Designs And Ors
Cyril Bath Company appealed an order that cursorily rejected its divisional application (application no. 1376/KOLNP/2013) on the ground that claim modifications were impermissible for PCT national phase applications. The High Court found the impugned order unsustainable and bereft of reasoning, mandating a reasoned decision by the Controller.
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.