IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 49 of 64 · 1,915 total
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. initiated a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 held by Dyson Technology Limited before the UPC Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached an agreement and signed a term sheet to settle the dispute. Following this settlement, SharkNinja requested withdrawal of its action, which the court allowed. This decision highlights how amicable settlements can lead to the early closure of complex patent litigation within the UPC framework.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
F. Hoffmann-La Roche appealed a single judge's decision that dismissed its application for an injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, which was manufacturing and selling Risdiplam. The core dispute centered on whether the species patent (IN 3343971) covering compounds for Spinal Muscular Atrophy was infringed by Risdiplam, or if the claims were obvious based on prior art disclosures in a genus patent (WO'916/US'955).
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Easee Holding B.V., and managing director
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect related to a security for costs order issued by the CFI in an infringement action. The court found that the initial order contained manifest errors, specifically regarding the legal basis for requiring security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. By granting suspensive effect to both Easee's appeals, the UPC ensured that the status quo would be maintained pending a full review of the underlying issues.
Saptarishi Herbals Llp v.Asif Enterprises & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Saptarishi Herbals Llp against Asif Enterprises & Anr. The court allowed several procedural applications, including granting the plaintiff exemptions regarding e-filing advertisements and pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff was granted leave to administer interrogatories upon the defendants, setting a clear path for the commencement of substantive litigation.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC granted Visibly Inc.'s request for security for costs against Easee B.V. The court found that despite arguments regarding the UPCA's scope and the defendants' status as a start-up, the claimant was entitled to protect itself from non-recovery of legal fees due to the defendants' precarious financial situation. This decision reinforces the procedural right of parties in UPC proceedings to seek security for costs when there is a genuine risk that judgment costs cannot be recovered.
Amycel LLC v.-
This UPC CFI decision addressed an application for re-establishment of rights (R.320) filed by the Defendant after missing the deadline to file a Statement of Defence in an infringement action. The court rejected the request, finding that the representative failed to demonstrate 'all due care' despite his illness. This ruling underscores the strict adherence required to procedural deadlines within the UPC framework.
Aculife Healthcare Private Limited v.Auspharma Private Limited
The Madras High Court disposed of OP(TM)No.34 of 2025, which sought rectification of a trademark registration. Although listed for reporting settlement, the court formally accepted and gave effect to a Memorandum of Compromise (MOC) between Aculife Healthcare Private Limited and Auspharma Private Limited. The judgment confirmed that the MOC would form part of the order, effectively resolving the dispute without further litigation.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Nederland N.V.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, aligning with the patent's grant language. The Claimant did not object, and the Court granted the request based on fairness considerations, noting that the parties are internationally active and the technical field uses English predominantly. This ruling reinforces the flexibility of the UPC in managing procedural logistics while ensuring fair access to justice for all involved.
Sahil Sachdeva & Anr. v.Ayush Dhingra & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit, granting plaintiffs several procedural exemptions crucial for urgent relief. Notably, the court exempted the plaintiffs from providing advance service to defendants, recognizing the risk that defendants might destroy evidence. Furthermore, the court appointed a Local Commissioner with broad powers to inventory and seize infringing products and inspect relevant books of accounts, setting the stage for immediate enforcement against alleged trademark infringers.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
This UPC decision addressed a request for provisional measures concerning evidence preservation and inspection related to the patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which covers specialized saw wires used in semiconductor manufacturing. The claimant sought to inspect facilities of Siltronic AG (and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG) to gather evidence regarding the use of patented saw wire types. Despite acknowledging the general principles of evidence preservation, the Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately rejected the application for an inspection and evidence-gathering order.
M/s. The Sen Knitting Company v.K.S.Shenthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an Original Petition filed by M/s. The Sen Knitting Company seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark, 'SEN SPIN,' and was used for identical goods (garments). Given the petitioner's established history as the prior adopter and user, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to expunge the conflicting entry.
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.
VIP Industries Ltd v.Carlton Shoes Ltd & Anr.
The Delhi High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision granting an interim injunction to Carlton Shoes Ltd. against Vip Industries Ltd. The core issue revolved around whether Vip's adoption of the 'CARLTON' mark for travel luggage constituted passing off, despite both parties possessing registrations in Class 18. The court found that VIP undertook the risk by adopting a non-ordinary word mark without sufficient prior knowledge of Carlton's established use and goodwill, thus upholding the injunction.
Bima Sugam India Federation v.A Range Gowda & Ors.
The Delhi High Court confirmed an interim injunction in favor of Bima Sugam India Federation against A Range Gowda & Ors., addressing a dispute over trademark infringement and domain name ownership. The court found that Defendant No. 1 had adopted the 'BIMA SUGAM' mark in bad faith, leading to deceptive similarity with the Plaintiff's established marketplace brand. Consequently, the Court directed the registrar (Defendant No. 2) to transfer the key domain names, www.bimasugam.com and www.bimasugam.in, to the Plaintiff, subject to the final outcome of the suit.
Le Shark Apparel Limited v.Anil Shah And 2 Ors
The Bombay High Court granted rectification to remove a registered trademark (No. 466002) belonging to the Respondents, which was identical to the Petitioner's established global mark 'LE SHARK'. The court found that the Respondents had fraudulently adopted the mark and lacked evidence of genuine use, thereby allowing the Petitioner to proceed with its brand in India. This decision reinforces the principle that a trademark register must maintain purity against deceptive or fraudulent registrations.
Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U.
In a key procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a complex corporate restructuring involving Sanofi. The court formally approved the substitution of Sanofi-Aventis France with its successor entity, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, in multiple ongoing infringement actions. This decision validates the principle that rights and obligations transfer seamlessly through mergers under UPC rules. It allows the substantive patent litigation to proceed without interruption despite significant changes in the claimant's corporate structure.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Varav Biogenesis Private Limited And Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals against Varav Biogenesis Private Limited. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional documents, including sales figures for its 'COBADEX' mark, in a sealed cover. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings regarding the core dispute, noting that the plaintiff alleges the defendants are using the deceptively similar mark 'CODODEX' for medicinal products, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an urgent inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. ahead of a main infringement lawsuit concerning its patent on surface treatment processes. The claimant argued that the respondent's specialized sales channels made it nearly impossible to obtain products for testing, thus preventing verification of alleged infringements. However, the Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, emphasizing procedural requirements and setting strict deadlines for filing the main action.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC costs decision addressed the reimbursement of litigation expenses following a successful infringement action. The Tribunal upheld the cost-sharing ratio established in the merits judgment (80% borne by the defendant). However, applying proportionality principles, the court significantly reduced the recoverable legal fees requested by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG, ultimately awarding a total of €77,064.65 to the claimant.
Luxottica Group S.P.A. v.Azad Optical Co. India & Ors.
The Delhi High Court issued a series of orders in favor of Luxottica Group S.P.A., which is seeking relief against counterfeiters selling 'RAY-BAN' products. The court granted the plaintiff exemptions from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, while also allowing the filing of additional documents and deficit court fees. Crucially, the court allowed an ad interim injunction, permitting a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure operations at the defendants' premises, including assistance from local police, to curb large-scale trademark infringement.
M/s. P.V.S.Knittings v.P. Prakash (trading as M/s. S P S TEX)
The Madras High Court addressed a complex suit involving allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright violation, and passing off. The plaintiff, M/s. P.V.S.Knittings, sought protection for its registered brand 'TWIN BIRDS' against the defendant's use of 'FLY BIRDS,' which was alleged to be deceptively similar in name and visual presentation (pink and white color scheme). Furthermore, the suit included a petition seeking rectification to cancel a conflicting trademark registration. The court issued a common judgment addressing both the infringement claims and the request for cancellation.
XX v.YY
The Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing Indian Patent No. 269841, which relates to Janus Kinase Inhibitors. The court passed several orders, including granting an ex parte ad-interim injunction and appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect premises and take samples of the alleged infringing drugs.
Avient Switzerland Gmbh v.Treadfast Ventures & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal filed by Avient Switzerland Gmbh, setting aside the previous rejection of its trademark application 'RENOL'. The court found that the original Trade Marks Registry failed to holistically consider all evidence presented by the appellant during the opposition proceedings. Consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the applicant a second chance to prove their claim.
NanoString Technologies Europe Limited v.President and Fellows of Harvard College
In this appeal case, NanoString Technologies sought to withdraw its revocation action against Harvard University concerning EP 2 794 928. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, noting that Harvard had not demonstrated a legitimate interest in continuing the proceedings after being given an opportunity to respond. This decision effectively closed the legal dispute and resulted in the release of NanoString's security deposit.
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
Interdigital Vc Holdings Inc & Anr. v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors.
The Plaintiffs filed a suit asserting infringement of their portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to cellular standards (3G, 4G, 5G, HEVC) by the Defendants' mobile and smart devices. The court issued orders allowing various procedural applications, including granting liberty to amend claims for additional patents and devices, while setting timelines for pleadings and interim relief hearings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction and damages for the infringement of their registered Indian patent (No. 283133) related to Ribociclib. The court subsequently heard various interlocutory applications, including those regarding discovery, exemption from mediation, and an application for interim stay.
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.