IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 50 of 64 · 1,915 total
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the composition of a confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement/revocation action involving Solvay Specialty Polymers and Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical. The Court confirmed the initial order, upholding the inclusion of non-employee experts from the claimant's economic unit. The ruling clarifies that access to confidential information is not strictly limited to direct employees, significantly broadening who can be included for effective litigation.
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd v.The Government Of Tamil Nadu
M/S.Zth Orbit Private Ltd filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a government tender and direct the respondents to conduct technical analysis based on the petitioner's patent grant for single source procurement. However, the petitioner subsequently moved to withdraw the petition.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
In this procedural order, the UPC dismissed MediaTek Inc.'s preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction in an infringement case brought by Daedalus Prime LLC. The claimant alleged that MediaTek was liable for supplying processors used in infringing Xiaomi smartphones marketed across UPC territories. The court ruled that despite MediaTek's non-domicile status, international jurisdiction is established because the patent has effect in Member States and a commercial relationship exists between the parties. This decision clears the path for the main infringement proceedings to continue.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A.; Alpinestars Research S.p.A.; Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. sought leave to limit its infringement claims from two patents (EP4072364 and EP3498117) after an adverse EPO decision restricted the scope of one patent. The UPC Milan Local Division granted this request unconditionally, confirming that a limitation of claim is a valid form of case amendment under Rule 263(3) RoP. This ruling clarifies that when a claimant limits its claims rather than withdrawing the entire action, the proceedings continue against the defendant regarding the remaining patents, and cost allocation is deferred until the final judgment.
Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited and Anr. v.John Doe And Ors
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in favor of Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited regarding its online gaming platforms. The court granted permanent injunctions against defendants for infringing on the plaintiffs' registered trademarks (such as 'PLAYSHIP', 'RUMMY CULTURE') and copyrights related to their website layouts and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific defendants to compel Internet Service Providers and Mobile Network Operators to block numerous identified infringing websites and applications.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement proceeding involving solar technology. The Court ultimately granted the request, despite the Claimant's argument that non-EU domicile alone should not be grounds for such an order. The ruling hinged on practical difficulties faced by European courts when serving documents in China, specifically citing issues related to the Hague Service Convention. This case highlights how procedural enforcement challenges can override general principles of jurisdiction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a critical hurdle in the infringement action brought by Leap Tools Inc. against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC: serving the Statement of Claim. After multiple failed attempts to locate the Defendants' current addresses, the Claimant successfully argued that good reason existed for alternative service. The Court granted permission to serve Defendant 2 at their CEO's business address in Poland, allowing the infringement proceedings to move forward.
Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) v.Mahindra Electric Automobile Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed Interglobe Aviation Limited (Indigo) to submit crucial documentation related to its '6E' trademark registration. The plaintiff sought leave under the CPC to place on record certificates that were only obtained after the initial filing of the suit, arguing they were not in their possession at the time of litigation commencement. Given the defendants had no objection, the court granted the application, allowing the evidence to be formally included in the ongoing trademark dispute.
Organon Heist B.V. v.Genentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the review of prior 'ex parte' orders for evidence preservation and inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The court provided crucial procedural guidance, outlining a rigorous two-step assessment process for reviewing these types of orders under R. 197.3 RoP. It also clarified the legal standard required to prove 'about to be infringed' in relation to subsequent infringement proceedings. This decision is highly significant for practitioners managing evidence gathering and risk assessment within the UPC framework.
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.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd. v.Syed Jawed Mohsin & Another
The Calcutta High Court allowed Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd.'s application for the cancellation and rectification of the mark 'PROTIFIX'. The court found that PROTIFIX was deceptively similar to the petitioner's established trademark, PROTINEX, both visually and phonetically, leading to a high likelihood of consumer confusion in the healthcare goods market. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of genuine use for the impugned mark, satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Act.
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v.Ethichem Biotech
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd filed a suit against Ethichem Biotech and others, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and copyright related to the product ZINCOVIT. The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions against using deceptively similar marks like ZINCOVITA and for passing off. Despite the initial claims of trademark and copyright violations, the parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This UPC case involved Oerlikon Textile asserting infringement of EP2145848 against Himson Engineering, while Himson counter-sued for revocation. After extensive proceedings, including an Oral Hearing, both parties reached a transactional agreement to terminate the dispute. The Court formally accepted the withdrawal applications under Rule 265 ROP, declaring the case closed and confirming that legal costs would be mutually compensated.
Skechers South Asia Private Limited v.Delhi Polymer & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiffs, Skechers South Asia Private Limited, to amend their plaint following the successful impleadment of new defendants. Crucially, the court also granted an interim injunction against these newly added parties (Defendants 20 and 21). This order recognizes a prima facie case of trademark infringement based on goods discovered during local commission proceedings, immediately restraining the defendants from manufacturing, marketing, or selling counterfeit products bearing Skechers' trademarks.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v.Wipro Enterprises Private Limited
Himalaya Wellness Company initiated proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking to challenge the validity of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited's trademark registration 'EVECARE.' The court allowed the plaintiffs' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court framed a specific issue questioning whether the defendant's mark is invalid and liable for removal/cancellation from the Register of Trademarks, setting the stage for further substantive litigation.
Hamdard National Foundation (India) v.Klm Pharma Seema Aggarwal Proprietor
The plaintiffs, part of the Hamdard Group, sued KLM Pharma for infringing their well-known Unani medicine trademark 'SAFI' and its associated trade dress. The defendant was found to be using a deceptively similar mark, 'SAIFI,' for identical goods (blood purifier).
Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v.Lakha Ram Sharma Proprietor Of Kundan Cable India
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an order that had stayed several ongoing trademark suits. The stay was granted by the Trial Court based on observations from a Division Bench judgment regarding rectification petitions. However, the High Court held that the reference to 'passing off' in the cited precedent was merely obiter dicta and not binding law. Consequently, all the consolidated suits were directed to proceed expeditiously for trial.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
Dolby International AB sought provisional measures at the UPC to prevent Roku, Inc. from pursuing Anti-Suit or Anti-Enforcement Injunctions in US courts related to the HEVC standard patent EP 3 490 258. The court ultimately denied Dolby's request for these protective measures. The ruling emphasized that while a prior warning is not strictly necessary, the claimant must demonstrate sufficient urgency and risk; otherwise, they may be liable for costs.
Aliud Pharma GmbH v.Novartis AG
In a procedural matter concerning document access, the UPC granted Aliud Pharma GmbH's request to view confidential documents from ACCORD Healthcare and Novartis AG. The Court provided clear guidance on GDPR compliance in digital proceedings, specifically addressing the scope of protection for digital signatures and company email addresses. This decision clarifies how parties must redact personal data when sharing evidence within the UPC framework.
ARDENIA INVESTMENTS, LTD. v.CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADEMARKS AND ANR
This case involves an appeal filed by Ardenia Investments Ltd. against a previous order dismissing its patent application for a "Drug Delivery System for administration of poorly Water Soluble pharmaceutical Active Substances." The original dismissal held that the subject matter lacked technical advancement and inventive steps, specifically citing Section 3(d) of the Act. The Calcutta High Court has issued procedural directions to the appellant regarding the continuation of the appeal.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This UPC decision is a procedural order issued by the Local Division of Munich in an infringement case involving Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz GmbH regarding EP patent 3 215 288. The court addressed scheduling conflicts, rescheduling the interim hearing to May 28, 2025, and confirming the oral hearing for July 1, 2025. This order sets clear procedural timelines, including a deadline of May 14, 2025, for written submissions.
Capital Foods Private Limited v.Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Capital Foods Private Limited against Damyaa (Pj) Foods Private Limited. The court found that the Defendant's use of 'SCHEZWAN TUFANI CHUTNEY' was a clear case of dishonest imitation and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark, 'SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY'. Given the Plaintiff's established reputation and significant market presence, the injunction aims to prevent consumer confusion and irreparable harm.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars Research S.p.A.
This UPC preliminary order addressed a jurisdictional challenge raised by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. against Dainese S.p.A.'s infringement claim. The Court ruled that, as the defendant was domiciled in an EU Member State participating in the UPCA, the Milan Local Division possessed universal jurisdiction. Crucially, the court affirmed its competence to hear claims concerning patents validated outside the UPC system, specifically in Spain. This decision reinforces the broad territorial reach of the UPC when dealing with defendants within the Union.
United States Of America v.Softgel Healthcare Private Limited
The petitioners (United States of America and associated entities) filed petitions seeking judicial assistance from the Madras High Court to execute Letters Rogatory issued by the United States District Court at Delaware. The dispute concerns alleged infringement of the '441 Patent' covering VYNDAMAX® by generic versions submitted via ANDA applications in the U.S.
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.