IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 52 of 64 · 1,915 total
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a claim for damages and costs arising from patent infringement concerning textile machinery. The court confirmed that while the respondent was liable for infringement, it rejected the claimant's request for provisional damages based on reputational harm due to insufficient evidence. The ruling highlights the strict evidentiary requirements needed to prove non-economic damages in UPC proceedings.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited
The Plaintiff filed a suit alleging patent infringement regarding heat exchanger plates. The Defendants asserted that their product does not infringe the suit patent. To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered the appointment of an independent Scientific Advisor to inspect the impugned product and provide a technical report on potential overlap with the patented claims.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard Development Company sought provisional measures against two defendants regarding the alleged infringement of its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division granted certain provisional orders, notably imposing significant penalty payments on Defendant 2 for manufacturing or importing infringing devices. This decision underscores the UPC's ability to swiftly enforce rights through interim measures while maintaining flexibility regarding subsequent merits proceedings.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Mannheim addressed a request by multiple defendant groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG) to split their proceedings due to concerns over disclosing sensitive supply chain information. The Court rejected these requests, holding that conflicts arising from shared counsel must be managed internally by the parties through confidentiality agreements. This decision reinforces the principle of unified litigation in UPC cases unless a clear legal basis for separation is established.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This UPC decision concerns a procedural matter where Avago Technologies sought to withdraw its application for interim measures against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation regarding EP 1 770 912. The court granted the withdrawal, noting that since the initial order had not been served and the respondent was unaware of the proceedings, no active participation or hearing was required. This ruling underscores the procedural flexibility within the UPC when parties voluntarily terminate actions.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple Retail France EURL, Apple Distribution International Ltd.
In a procedural order issued on February 12, 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC established detailed confidentiality rules for sensitive information exchanged between Ona Patents SL and Apple Inc. The ruling specifically classified certain unredacted documents as confidential under Article 58 UPCA. This decision highlights the court's proactive role in protecting trade secrets during high-stakes patent litigation involving major tech players.
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited v.Rainbow Health Care
Rainbow Children's Medicare Limited appealed against the Trial Court's order that had dismissed its applications for temporary injunction. The appellant, a leading chain of paediatric multi-speciality hospitals, sought to restrain the respondent from using deceptively similar marks like 'Rainbow Health Care'. The High Court found merit in the appeal, setting aside the adverse orders and reviving the ad-interim injunctions. This decision reinforces the protection afforded to established healthcare brands against deceptive use.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This procedural order addressed an applicant's request for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in a terminated revocation action (EP2661892). The Court of First Instance granted redacted access to most documents, finding that the general interest in transparency outweighed concerns about proceeding integrity after termination. However, the court rejected access to specific exhibits containing non-technical information, emphasizing that file inspection must be limited to technical explanations regarding interpretation and validity.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC granted Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd's request to classify specific documents and information shared during infringement proceedings against MediaTek Germany GmbH as confidential trade secrets. The court affirmed that parties can successfully invoke Art. 58 EPC and Rule 262A VerfO to protect sensitive business information from public disclosure. This decision reinforces the robust protection of trade secrets within UPC litigation, mandating confidentiality not only for public access but also for all participants involved in the case.
Andreas Gutzeit v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademark and Anr.
This matter before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division involves Andreas Gutzeit challenging a patent-related issue against The Controller General of Patents. The appellant raised a pure question of law concerning the interpretation of Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. Given the complexity and legal nature of the dispute, the court granted a final adjournment to allow both parties time to file their Written Notes of Submissions.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the mandatory procedural requirements for imposing periodic penalty payments under R. 354.4 RoP. The court ruled that such an intrusive measure must be decided by a panel, not a single judge. Consequently, the appeal was successful, leading to the setting aside of the initial order and referral back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Rajan Adlakha v.Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.
Rajan Adlakha filed a writ petition seeking direction against the Registrar of Trademarks regarding a pending opposition. The petitioner argued that since the opponent failed to file evidence by the statutory deadline, the opposition was deemed abandoned under Trademark Rules, but the Registrar had not formally recorded this status. The Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 (Registrar) to treat the petition as a formal representation and pass appropriate orders recording the abandonment within four weeks.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L, Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Odiporo GmbH, Shamrock Mobile GmbH
This UPC decision from Mannheim concerns a case between Panasonic Holdings Corporation and various Xiaomi entities. The core of the dispute—an infringement claim alongside a revocation counterclaim—was resolved through an agreement, leading both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Although the overall outcome was a settlement, the court issued specific rulings regarding the adjustment of court fees and costs based on the increased value of the dispute.
Trident Limited v.Controller Of Patents
Trident Limited appealed a decision by the Controller of Patents that refused grant for its patent application concerning 'Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing'. The Appellant argued that the refusal, based on lack of inventive step, was flawed because the cited prior art did not disclose the critical feature: uniformly distributed pores across the radial cross-section of the yarn. The Delhi High Court found infirmities in the Impugned Order, particularly regarding the interpretation of novelty and obviousness against the specific claims. Consequently, the High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different Controller.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a recent procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed scheduling issues in an infringement action brought by Maxell against Samsung. The court granted a request to harmonize deadlines for all defendants, setting a uniform service date and subsequent deadline for filing the Statement of Defence. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's ability to manage complex multi-defendant litigation across various jurisdictions efficiently.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of sensitive sales and profit data submitted by Nintendo. The Court ruled on balancing the fundamental right to be heard against the protection of trade secrets, ultimately upholding the general principle of confidentiality while granting limited access to specific Claimant personnel. This case reinforces the strict obligations parties have regarding handling confidential information, especially when it originates from third-party sources.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for security for costs. The court ruled in favor of Emboline, Inc., requiring AorticLab srl to provide €200,000 in security. This decision highlights that when a party themselves raises concerns about insolvency following an injunction, it satisfies the legal requirement for granting security for costs under the UPC Agreement.
M/s.Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP. v.M/s.Sangeetham House of Veg
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of a conflicting trademark. The petitioner, M/s.Sangeetha Caterers, successfully argued that the respondent's mark, 'SANGEETHAM HOUSE OF VEG,' was registered in bad faith after a court decree had already mandated the respondent to change their business name to 'Hotel Raagam - House of Veg.' The Court held that the registration was voidable because it suppressed prior litigation and compromise terms, ordering the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the conflicting mark forthwith.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion concerning the requirement for a third-party intervenor to provide a financial security deposit in an infringement case. The claimant sought to compel Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., who was involved as a third-party intervener, to post EUR 169,000.00. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that while the intervener is treated like a party for cost purposes, ordering security deposits in such circumstances is not warranted.
Mahle Gmbh v.Madan & Ors.
In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court allowed Mahle Gmbh to implead Mr. Ankur Jain (M/s A.J. Enterprises) as a defendant after local commissioner reports found counterfeit 'MAHLE' pistons at his premises. Consequently, the court extended the existing interim injunction order against this newly added party. This decision underscores the judiciary's willingness to ensure all parties involved in counterfeiting activities are brought before the court for proper adjudication.
Mittal Electronrcs v.Shashi Kant Garg & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Mittal Electronrcs against Shashi Kant Garg & Ors. The court found that the defendants were using the identical registered trademark 'SUJATA' for allied and cognate goods, thereby infringing upon the plaintiff's established goodwill and reputation. Given the likelihood of consumer confusion and the irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the court restrained the defendants from using the mark until the final hearing.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 110 072 B1, the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf corrected an error in its prior decision. The case involved Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., addressing issues related to patent infringement and costs. The court's ruling focused solely on rectifying a clerical and calculation mistake regarding the reimbursement of claimant fees.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This UPC CFI decision addresses a procedural hurdle in an infringement case, specifically the successful completion of service against a defendant domiciled in China. The court found that despite multiple rejections by Chinese authorities due to minor formal issues, the claimant's attempts complied with The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the court declared the service valid, allowing the substantive infringement proceedings to move forward without further delays.
Adventia Pharma, S.L & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Adventia Pharma appealed against the Assistant Controller's order dated January 29, 2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202117035025. The court allowed applications for exemption and condonation of delay before directing parties to file synopsis and list the case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.
The defendants filed an application seeking correction and interpretation of a prior court order, arguing that it implied the plaintiff had complied with FRAND obligations. The Court found that the defendants were not seeking a clerical correction but rather modification/interpretation of pending issues related to SEP compliance. Consequently, the application was dismissed as premature.
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.