IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 51 of 64 · 1,915 total
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v.Alivus Life Sciences Limited
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages for infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 282654 related to Ivacaftor. The court initially allowed the exemption from pre-litigation mediation, and subsequently passed an interim order granting ex-parte injunctions against the defendant regarding the use and sale of the patented product.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 2 839 403 addressed a dispute over whether the Claimant's introduction of new technical details and product examples constituted an impermissible amendment to the infringement action. The Court determined that providing further illustrative examples of existing functionalities, even on newly released models, does not change the nature or scope of the original dispute. Consequently, while the request to exclude these submissions was postponed for a full panel review, all other procedural requests by the Defendants were dismissed.
Enhaz Beverages Private Limited v.Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Enhaz Beverages Private Limited against Shubh Food Agro Industries & Ors. The court found that the defendant's use of the mark 'GROWSY' and a deceptively similar trade dress constituted infringement, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GROOVY' and its family of marks. This preliminary order protects the plaintiff's brand reputation while the full suit proceeds.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This decision addresses jurisdictional objections in a complex patent infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC against various Motorola entities and logistics providers. The court dismissed the defendants' objections, affirming its jurisdiction under Articles 33(1)(a) and (b) of the UPC Agreement. Crucially, the ruling clarifies the scope of Article 33(1)(b), stating it is an extension of jurisdiction but does not automatically permit unified claims against all parties without specific conditions. The main infringement proceedings will now proceed to a substantive hearing.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In this preliminary objection case, the UPC addressed a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding whether its authority extends to alleged patent infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force. The Court decisively rejected the Defendants' argument that international treaty principles (VCLT) limited jurisdiction only to post-entry-into-force actions. This ruling confirms the broad scope of the UPC's competence in handling historical infringement claims, provided they fall under its jurisdictional basis.
Vaibhav Agarwal v.Prabhakar Kumar & Ors.
Vaibhav Agarwal, claiming ownership of the 'Haldiram' trademark, challenged the actions of the Resolution Professional (RP) regarding the Corporate Debtor, Haldiram Fincap Pvt. Ltd., citing potential IP infringement. The RP argued that the name was inherent to the corporate debtor and that Form G could not be withdrawn under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Recognizing the dispute's complexity, the Delhi High Court opted to refer the matter for mediation, encouraging an amicable resolution between the parties.
Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v.Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Limited
The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff's interim injunction request concerning alleged trademark infringement. Gensol Electric Vehicles sought to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility from using 'eZEO,' claiming prior rights over 'EZIO.' However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for confusion, noting that the defendant had already launched its product while the plaintiff was yet to market theirs. The judgment emphasizes the importance of actual market presence and use when assessing likelihood of confusion.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited against De Harbien Life Sciences Private Limited. The court found that the defendant's use of marks like 'NEFROKIND' and 'SILOKIND' was likely to cause confusion with Mankind's well-known trademarks, including 'MANKIND' and its formative variants. Given the pharmaceutical nature of the products and the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiff and the public, the court restrained the defendant from selling or advertising the impugned marks until further hearing.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
Ohr Laboratory Corporation v.Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Ohr Laboratory Corporation against Gasion Airtech Private Limited & Ors. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, irreparable harm would result without intervention, and the balance of convenience favored the Plaintiff. Defendants are now restrained from using the 'OHR' mark or similar names/model numbers, as well as from reproducing copyrighted brochure elements.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Meril GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses critical procedural issues regarding representation in the Unified Patent Court, specifically concerning public access requests and party standing. The court ruled that self-representation is invalid for both lawyers/patent attorneys acting as parties and corporate officers holding high-level management roles. This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for legal independence under the UPC Agreement. The decision did not resolve the underlying merits of the case but instead issued an exceptional order, granting the involved parties a short window to appoint proper representatives and remedy procedural defects.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.M. Bathla & Anr.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. filed a suit alleging that M. Bathla & Anr. infringed its Indian Patent No. 175971, which covered a 'Digital Transmission System,' through the manufacturing and sale of VCD systems and media. The court examined whether the defendants' replication process utilized the patented technology. Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found that the suit patent did not cover the resultant VCD product or the specific replication process employed by the defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish infringement and the suit was dismissed.
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal upheld the patent against revocation challenges brought by Sanofi. The ruling not only rejected the requests to invalidate but also established important legal precedents regarding claim interpretation and inventive step assessment within the Unified Patent Court. This case reinforces the rigorous standards for patentability while providing clarity on how therapeutic claims must be interpreted.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a case concerning security for costs and the disposal of an action that has become devoid of purpose. The claimant, Ballinno B.V., initially sought provisional measures related to patent EP 1 944 067 but subsequently withdrew these requests on appeal. Consequently, the court disposed of the action while rejecting Ballinno's request to set aside the security for costs. This ruling reinforces procedural principles regarding case abandonment and cost allocation in UPC litigation.
Ciena Corporation v.Union Of India & Ors.
Ciena Corporation challenged the deemed abandonment of its Indian patent application, which was issued by the Patent Office due to failure to respond to a First Examination Report (FER). The petitioner argued that this lapse was solely attributable to an inadvertent mistake made by their patent agent. The Delhi High Court agreed with Ciena, holding that an applicant should not suffer consequences for the bona fide errors of their legal representatives or agents. Consequently, the court set aside the abandonment letter and restored the application, granting a final opportunity to prosecute the patent.
Mr Amit Arora Sole Proprietor M/S Hydro Valves v.The Controller General Of Patents Design and Trade Marks & Ors.
The petitioner filed Rectification Petitions seeking cancellation of three 'MILTON' trademarks registered in Class 21. Respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the pendency of earlier related rectification petitions before the Trade Marks Registry, Mumbai. The court satisfied this objection after the petitioner undertook to withdraw the relevant pending petitions.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Ireland Unlimited Company challenged the slow pace and procedural irregularities in the handling of its Patent Application No. 8004/DELNP/2011, which was subject to multiple pre-grant oppositions under Section 25(1) of the Patents Act, 1970. The petitioner raised concerns regarding mechanical issuance of notices and delays in pronouncing orders after hearings were concluded. The Delhi High Court intervened, directing the Controller General's office to expedite the process and pass a consolidated order on all pending oppositions by December 31, 2025.
M/S. Arvind Laboratories v.Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhania And Anr
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim direction requiring the respondents to modify the get-up and trade dress of their product, 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi.' The respondents were mandated to forward copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025. This order allows both parties time to adjust the disputed branding while keeping the litigation moving toward a resolution.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a Preliminary objection raised by the patent holder, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., arguing that the revocation action lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was acting as a 'straw company' for another party involved in parallel infringement proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this argument, emphasizing that coordinated litigation strategies alone do not equate to a straw company structure. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to successfully challenge standing or jurisdiction based on corporate relationships within the UPC framework.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co Ltd
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed a decision by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks regarding an opposition filed against the trademark 'FLORASIS'. The Delhi High Court granted condonation of a 7-day delay in filing the appeal, allowing the matter to proceed. Notice has been issued to all parties, setting the stage for a substantive hearing on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v.ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, ZTE Netherlands B.V.
Samsung initiated an infringement action against ZTE regarding standard-essential patents related to 5G mobile devices. The UPC Local Division in Mannheim issued an order setting the preliminary value of the dispute at €4 million. This decision significantly raises the financial stakes for both parties, reflecting the broad commercial impact of the alleged infringement across key market segments.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH regarding the use of its electrolytic medium in electropolishing processes (EP 4 249 647 B1). The Hamburg Local Division upheld the cease and desist order, imposing significant recurring penalty payments for non-compliance. This case highlights the practical application of provisional measures within the UPC framework, emphasizing the balance between protecting patent rights and considering market interests.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.AYLO PREMIUM LTD
In this preliminary ruling concerning an infringement case (UPC_CFI_471/2023), the court addressed a motion by the defendants to introduce arguments and interpretations from a related US patent proceeding. The court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that differing views on claim scope in foreign proceedings are not admissible for interpreting the European patent claims. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural order within the UPC, requiring parties to present all relevant facts and legal arguments promptly.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This procedural order in UPC_CFI_537/2024 addressed critical issues regarding claim scope and evidence admissibility in an infringement and revocation action. The court allowed extensive amendments to the patent claims, provided they maintained a reasonable structure (two strains of auxiliary requests). Furthermore, it admitted new prior art documents introduced by both sides, ensuring that the case can proceed with a comprehensive review of validity and infringement.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application filed by ITCiCo Spain S.L. seeking to overturn a default judgment in a revocation action against Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft. The core issue was whether the claimant provided sufficient justification for missing critical deadlines. The Court ruled that merely explaining the delay is insufficient; the applicant must prove the failure was caused by unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure, thereby reinforcing strict procedural compliance within the UPC system.
Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. v.Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal And Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted several procedural reliefs in favor of Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc. in its trademark infringement suit against Mr. Hari Kishan Pippal and others. The court exempted the plaintiff from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Furthermore, recognizing the risk of defendants concealing infringing operations, the court allowed an exemption from advance service, permitting the immediate filing of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction application and the appointment of a Local Commissioner for inspection of goods.
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.