IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 189 · 5,670 total
Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the Controller's decision to reject its patent application (1250/KOL/2009) primarily on grounds of lacking inventive steps. The appellant argued that the reintroduction of this objection after amendments and previous hearings violated natural justice principles. The High Court found that the procedure was against the scheme of the Act, setting aside the rejection order.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk A/S appealed an order where a Single Judge found infringement and granted limited relief to Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited. The appeal centers on whether the suit patent (IN 2626971) is vulnerable to invalidity under Section 64 of the Patents Act, given that the learned judge found the claim obvious from prior art.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Trutzchler Gmbh And Co Kg Limited v.The Controller General Of Patents
The appellant challenged the rejection of their patent application (No. 1250/KOL/2009) based on alleged lack of inventive steps. The appeal argued that the Controller reintroduced this objection suo moto, violating natural justice principles and contradicting earlier notices where the objection had been waived.
Docbel Industries & Anr. v.Braun Aktiengesellschaft
The Delhi High Court disposed of the dispute between Docbel Industries and Braun Aktiengesellschaft based on a comprehensive settlement agreement. The court accepted the compromise, which involved the formal assignment of Trademark registration no. 405367 (the mark BRAUN) from Appellant No. 2 to the Respondent. Furthermore, the parties agreed to the handover of all related documents and financial considerations, effectively resolving the underlying litigation.
Ultratech Cement Limited v.Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited
The Bombay High Court addressed the trademark infringement suit filed by Ultratech Cement against Dalmia Cement Bharat. The court formally framed seven key issues, including whether the defendant's use of 'DALMIA ULTRA' infringes upon Ultratech's registered trademarks and whether there is an act of passing off. This judgment sets the stage for detailed evidence presentation, directing the plaintiff to file affidavits within four weeks.
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.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent in an IPR, resulting in all 20 claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petition unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent, leading the PTAB to find all ten claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art social‑network and advertising systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully invalidated SitNet’s ’932 patent claims covering targeted advertising in situational networks. The Board found all challenged claims (12‑21) obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones. The decision clears Meta’s path for its ad‑tech offerings.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent, leading the PTAB to find all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art event‑organization and location‑based systems.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art references Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petitioner’s arguments unopposed.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent, leading the PTAB to find all ten claims unpatentable as obvious over Amidon, Walsh, Shahine, and Jones.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate SitNet’s ’815 patent covering social‑network event coordination, asserting that all 30 claims are obvious over existing social‑network and event‑planning technologies.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions to invalidate SitNet’s ’769 patent covering situational networks, arguing all 30 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition cites multiple earlier patents and publications and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v.Kurin, Inc.
Magnolia Medical Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑24 of Kurin’s blood‑sample optimization device, asserting that the Bullington800 publication (alone and combined with Brancazio and Liu) anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
Univacco Technology Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of 20 claims of the ‘935 decorative‑foil patent, alleging lack of enablement, insufficient written description, and indefiniteness. The petition relies on extensive expert analysis of the patent’s functional language and missing test protocols.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms petitions the PTAB to invalidate all twelve claims of SitNet’s U.S. Patent 12,336,052, asserting obviousness over two sets of prior‑art references covering social‑network event handling. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Univacco Technology Inc. v.LEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
Dileep Bakliwal Prop Poonam Marketing v.Mohan Singh Panwar
This petition challenged the rejection of a request to transfer a trademark infringement suit to the Commercial Court. The petitioner argued that since the dispute involved intellectual property, it should automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of the low valuation. However, the High Court ruled that while IP rights are covered by the Act, the requirement for a 'commercial dispute' to have a specified value of at least Rs. 3 lakhs must be met. Since the suit was valued below this threshold, the court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed the petition.
Titan Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Stove Kraft Limited v.The Registry of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.
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.