IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 54 of 64 · 1,915 total
Sanofi SA (successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB
Sanofi initiated multiple infringement actions against Accord Healthcare concerning the use of a specific compound combination for treating prostate cancer (EP 2 493 466). This procedural order confirms the court's schedule, setting key dates for interim conferences and the main oral hearing in October 2025. The parties are now moving into the substantive phase of the litigation after initial filings.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd v.Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited
The Delhi High Court issued a significant order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against Jeena Sikho Lifecare Limited. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file additional documentation and, crucially, addressed the request for an ad interim injunction. While noting concerns over mark similarity and color combination usage, the court granted conditional relief, requiring the defendant (D-1) to change its packaging colors within two weeks while allowing it to exhaust existing stock.
Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect and expedition filed by Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. against Jingao Solar Co., Ltd. The appeal concerned a security for costs order issued by the Court of First Instance in the main infringement/revocation proceedings regarding EP 2 787 541. The Court ultimately rejected Chint's request, upholding the original timeline and requiring Chint to provide the stipulated security.
Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed several procedural applications in the trademark appeal case, Yiwu Kemei Electric Appliance Co. Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks And Anr. The court allowed the appellant to withdraw a previously filed review petition. Crucially, the court also condoned a delay of 62 days in filing the main appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2025). Following these procedural orders, the case was listed for final hearing on May 27, 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a request for the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both an infringement action and associated counterclaims. The Court analyzed the procedural status of the case—specifically that regular pleadings had been exchanged, but the written procedure was not formally closed. Applying relevant Rules of Procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii)), the Court granted a partial reimbursement of 40% of the fees to the Defendants.
Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued several orders in favor of the Plaintiff, Woodland (Aero Club) Pvt. Ltd., in its suit against M/S Speedways Tyre Treads & Anr. The court granted exemptions for pre-institution mediation and advanced service, recognizing the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court allowed the Plaintiff to seek an ex-parte ad-interim injunction by appointing a Local Commissioner to inspect the premises and stock of the Defendant, thereby initiating immediate protective measures against alleged trademark infringement.
M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works v.Rhugved Pharmaceuticals
The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition filed by M/S. Adarsh Pharmaceutical Works challenging the rejection of its application for a stay of proceedings in a related trademark suit. The petitioner argued that since their own suit regarding the same product was already pending and had an injunction, the subsequent suit filed by Rhugved Pharmaceuticals seeking passing off should be stayed under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court agreed with the petitioner's stance, directing that the District Judge-12, Nagpur, shall not proceed with Trademark Suit No.3 of 2023 in the interim.
Jaquar And Company Private Limited v.Jaquar Franchise & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunctive relief in favor of Jaquar And Company Private Limited against various defendants regarding the unauthorized use of its 'JAQUAR' trademark. The court ordered immediate suspension of specific domain names associated with the mark and directed actions to freeze relevant bank accounts, recognizing the brand's well-known status. This order sets a strong precedent for protecting established trademarks in the digital age.
Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
The petitioner appealed against an order rejecting its patent application (No. 2416/CHE/2009) for 'TWO-STAGE MODEL PREDICTIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUE'. The rejection was based on Section 3(k), classifying the claims as a mere computer programme per se. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the patent office failed to discuss or record reasons for rejecting the appellant's contentions.
Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd & Anr. v.Nippon Paint (India) Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court has formally registered the trademark infringement suit filed by Glossy Paints India Pvt Ltd against Nippon Paint. While addressing various interlocutory applications, the court allowed the plaintiffs to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation. Crucially, the court also initiated proceedings for an interim injunction, setting a date for further arguments on the matter of trademark infringement.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Qpharm Health Care Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple issues in the ongoing dispute between Glaxo Group Limited and Qpharm Health Care Limited. The court allowed a petition seeking the transfer and consolidation of trademark rectification proceedings against 'BETNOTREAT' into the main infringement suit, recognizing the interconnected nature of the disputes. Furthermore, after hearing arguments regarding trade dress similarity, the parties were referred to mediation, indicating a potential path toward settlement.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This Milan Local Division case involved a complex situation where an infringement action and associated revocation counterclaims were partially withdrawn due to one defendant's insolvency. The Court allowed the withdrawal against the insolvent party (Digital River) but maintained the proceedings against the remaining defendants (Asustek and Arvato). Crucially, the court applied principles of fairness and equity, ruling that both Ericsson and Digital River should bear their own costs related to these withdrawals, despite conflicting claims.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd
The suit was filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). The patents relate to technologies incorporated into 3G, 4G, and 5G cellular standards. The court addressed various interlocutory applications regarding amendments, discovery, and procedural exemptions.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH v.Tiroler Rohre GmbH
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application following the withdrawal of an interim measure request. The court found the claim admissible and necessary, establishing that costs incurred by the claimant were recoverable. Although the respondent successfully argued for reductions in specific time entries due to lack of plausibility, the overall reimbursement amount was significantly upheld.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC
In this UPC case concerning patent infringement (EP 3 110 069), the court addressed a motion for security for costs. Although the defendants filed counterclaims seeking revocation, they were still granted the right to demand financial security from the claimant. The ruling emphasizes that cost protection is available even when the defendant has raised a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity, provided there are sufficient doubts regarding the claimant's ability to cover defense expenses.
Mr Abhishek Sharma & Anr. v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellants appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing their patent application (No. 202111053480). The subject matter related to 'black coloured wearing' and its alleged effects on human health, which the Controller rejected as non-technical and an abstract theory lacking scientific evidence. The High Court dismissed the appeal both on merits and due to the inordinate delay in filing.
Utolish Ali Amir v.M/S Sumo Digital Incorporation
The Gujarat High Court dismissed an appeal challenging a commercial court's grant of ad-interim injunction. The court upheld the finding that the defendant's trademark was identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark, particularly within the business of electronic weighing scales. The judgment reinforces the rigorous three-test framework (similarity of marks, similarity of goods/services, likelihood of confusion) under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Sanofi (various entities) v.Medac Gesellschaft für klinische Spezialpräparate m.b.H.
This procedural order addressed Medac's attempt to withdraw an application concerning a privileged and confidential document (Exhibit 2) that had been uploaded into the UPC system. The court permitted the withdrawal but issued a strong warning against Medac's representative for negligently breaching the Code of Conduct by uploading the unredacted material. This decision underscores the strict procedural requirements regarding confidentiality and evidence handling within the UPC framework.
Star India Pvt. Ltd. v.Ashar Nisar & Ors.
Star India Pvt. Ltd., an entertainment media company, filed a suit against various individuals and entities for the unauthorized dissemination and broadcasting of its copyrighted content through rogue mobile applications and illicit websites. The plaintiffs asserted their exclusive rights over content streamed via STAR Channels and Disney+ Hotstar. Given that the defendants failed to contest the suit by filing a written statement despite being served, the Delhi High Court found them liable for copyright piracy.
M/S. Mocemsa Care v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S. Mocemsa Care against the Registrar's refusal of a device mark registration. The court held that even if the mark comprises common English words, its composite and stylized arrangement makes it distinctive when viewed as a whole. Furthermore, the court dismissed the objection regarding insufficient invoices, noting that this issue was never raised in the initial examination report. Consequently, the application is now directed to proceed with advertisement.
Tv Today Network v.Saurashtra Aaj Tak And Anr
In a matter concerning alleged passing off, Tv Today Network (Appellant) raised concerns that the Respondent, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, continued to use the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' despite an existing decree in favor of the Appellant. The Appellant emphasized that her trademark had since been registered and declared 'well known.' The Delhi High Court has scheduled a further hearing on May 13, 2025, to address these ongoing infringement claims.
Daedalus Prime LLC v.Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal addressed the scope of confidential information protection in an infringement case involving Daedalus Prime LLC and Xiaomi. The court overturned a previous decision that denied access to Daedalus's US attorneys, recognizing their trustworthiness and necessity for effective litigation. This decision clarifies the boundaries of R. 262A RoP, confirming that professional assistants outside the strict definition of UPC representatives can be granted necessary access.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving HMD Global Oy and Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft. The Court ruled in favor of HMD Global, granting its request to change the court language from German to English (the patent grant language). The ruling underscores the importance of considering the defendant's operational needs and ability to coordinate internally when balancing fairness under Article 49(5) UPCA.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom International Limited
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance allowed the withdrawal of all claims in the case involving Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Dexcom International Limited regarding patent EP4070727. Both parties mutually consented to drop their infringement and revocation actions. The court subsequently declared the proceedings closed, setting the value of the cases at EUR 4 million.
Bodycap v.Office européen des brevets (OEB)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements for obtaining unitary effect under the Unitary Patent Regulation (RPU). The appeal, brought by co-owners against the EPO's rejection of their request, centered on whether a late response to an invitation to correct administrative irregularities could be remedied. The court firmly ruled that the one-month deadline set out in Rule 7(3) RPU is absolute and non-negotiable. This case serves as a critical reminder for patent holders regarding the procedural rigidity when transitioning from national/European patents to unitary protection.
L And T Valves Limited v.M/S Ksa Valve Control Inc. & Ors.
In a case concerning the alleged passing off of its goods, L And T Valves Limited successfully secured several critical interim reliefs from the Delhi High Court. The court exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation due to the sensitive nature of the industry (defence, aerospace, oil & gas). Crucially, the court allowed the appointment of a Local Commissioner with powers to search and seize infringing products at the defendants' premises, providing a strong procedural step in the ongoing trademark infringement suit.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
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.