IP Cases — 2025
1,915 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 56 of 64 · 1,915 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Vizgen, Inc.
This UPC decision concerns an application by 10x Genomics to withdraw its appeals against certain interim orders issued by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The appeal concerned a patent infringement case involving EP 4108782, where Vizgen had requested the disclosure of specific documents from 10x. Both parties agreed to the withdrawal of the appeals. The court accepted this request, formally concluding the appellate proceedings.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
In a procedural order concerning EP 2 037 175, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim granted Polidoro S.p.a. an extension of one week to file its reply brief and defense against Bekaert's counterclaim for revocation. The court acknowledged that delays in providing unredacted documents necessitated this procedural adjustment. This decision underscores the UPC's commitment to ensuring fair procedure, even when dealing with complex litigation involving both infringement claims and revocation counterclaims.
Havells India Limited v.Aman Virmani
Havells India Limited successfully settled its trademark infringement suit against Aman Virmani before the Delhi High Court. The parties agreed to a comprehensive settlement where the defendant acknowledged Havells' rights in 'REO', committed to ceasing all use of similar marks like 'RIEO', and agreed to destroy all infringing products. Furthermore, the defendant consented to withdraw his pending trademark application (No. 5774240), leading to the suit being decreed based on these mutual terms.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v.LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi v.M/S. Safed Parindey Event Management LLP and Ors.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Ms. Niti Milan Pancholi, upholding the Commercial Court's rejection of her request for an interim injunction. The court found that Ms. Pancholi failed to establish a prima facie case regarding her proprietary rights over the trademarks "Safedishq" and "SafedParindey." Crucially, the judgment highlighted that while she was associated with 'the Sheri Affair,' ownership lay with another entity, Loop Events & Entertainment, making her claim of prior usage unsubstantiated at this stage. The ruling emphasizes that mere association is insufficient to secure injunctive relief without concrete proof of proprietary rights.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
In this preliminary objection case, Honeywell challenged jurisdictional and competence arguments raised by multiple defendants against its infringement suit concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The Local Division Mannheim rejected all objections, clarifying key aspects of UPC jurisdiction. The court held that the requirements for local division competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA are met without needing an extra 'connection,' and affirmed that liability can extend to instigators even if they are not domiciled in the EU.
STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
In a significant decision regarding claim construction, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected an application for provisional measures concerning an electropolishing medium. The dispute hinged on whether a specific emulsion met the patent's requirement for a 'non-conductive fluid.' The court ruled that by analyzing the surrounding liquid as a whole, the conductivity exceeded the claimed limit, thus finding no infringement. This case underscores the critical importance of precise claim interpretation when dealing with complex chemical formulations like emulsions in UPC litigation.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_791/2024), Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd successfully withdrew its application after reaching an out-of-court settlement with Netgear Inc. and its affiliates. The Munich Local Division of the UPC granted the withdrawal, formally ending the interim relief proceedings. This case highlights how amicable settlements can efficiently resolve complex patent disputes within the UPC framework, leading to the immediate release of security deposits.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addressed a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to allow further written pleadings in an infringement action against Texas Instruments. The Claimant argued that new and complex technical points raised by the Defendants required additional time for submission. However, the UPC Panel dismissed this review application, emphasizing strict formal requirements for procedural requests under R. 36 RoP. This decision reinforces the court's adherence to established case law regarding the necessary level of substantiation in managing litigation timelines.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB 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, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants sets the stage for intensive litigation. The core dispute revolves around the inventive step of EP 2 493 466, specifically concerning the reasonable expectation of success derived from clinical trials (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled extensive expert testimony and oral hearings to allow the panel to address highly technical factual questions related to oncology drug development before making a final decision on validity and infringement. This case highlights the UPC's capacity to handle deep scientific and medical complexities in patent disputes.
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement and revocation dispute concerning the PCSK9 inhibitor evolocumab (Repatha®). While the case involved detailed arguments regarding second medical use claims, the court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. The ruling served to clarify procedural aspects of patent litigation within the UPC, particularly emphasizing that pleading ignorance is not recognized under the Rules of Procedure.
P.Pandian v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of P.Pandian, directing the Registrar of Trademarks to allow the renewal of the trademark 'THILTH'. The core issue was that despite the mark expiring, the petitioner could not renew it because the Registry failed to issue the mandatory statutory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The court emphasized the Registrar's duty to inform proprietors about approaching expiration, thereby enabling timely renewal or restoration.
Kroll Information Assurance, Llc v.The Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks and Ors
Kroll Information Assurance, LLC appealed the refusal of its patent application concerning a Peer-to-Peer Network search system. The Controller had rejected the application primarily on grounds that it fell under the excluded subject matter of 'computer program per se' and 'algorithm' as defined by Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The Delhi High Court upheld this rejection, concluding that the invention merely performs conventional search functions without demonstrating a demonstrable technical advancement to the hardware. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited v.Anita Anu
This case before the Calcutta High Court concerned an application by Pankaj Plastic Industries Private Limited seeking to revoke a dispensation granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement by the defendant using the mark 'Poly Punkaj'. However, the court found that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate justification for the nine-month delay between becoming aware of the issue (January 2024) and filing the suit (September 2024). Citing precedents, the judge held that without a clear explanation for the delay, the urgency was artificially created, leading to the revocation of the dispensation.
Master Capital Services Limited & Anr. v.John Doe & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted crucial interim relief in favor of Master Capital Services Limited regarding the misuse of its 'Master Trust' trademark. The court recognized that unidentified individuals were using the brand name on messaging platforms like WhatsApp for fraudulent investment schemes. Consequently, the court issued directions to block specific WhatsApp accounts and permanently freeze bank accounts linked to the alleged infringers, safeguarding the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Oramed Ltd. v.The Controller General Of Patents And Designs & Anr.
Oramed Ltd. appealed against an order refusing patent grant for its oral insulin composition. The appeal contended that the Deputy Controller made arbitrary omissions of prior art documents and ignored crucial technical data and expert testimony when assessing inventive steps under Section 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970.
ILME GmbH Elektronische Handelsgesellschaft v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A.
This UPC appeal case involved ILME GmbH seeking to suspend the main infringement and revocation proceedings before the Local Division Munich while its preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court was being heard on appeal. The court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing the need for procedural efficiency and timely resolution. This decision reinforces the principle that jurisdictional challenges should be addressed within the UPC framework without unduly delaying substantive litigation.
Ihhr Hospitality Ananda Pvt. Ltd. v.Avirup Sircar
The Delhi High Court addressed an application seeking exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation in a trademark opposition case. The court dismissed the plaintiff's request, noting that extensive prior communication and action had already taken place between the parties regarding the mark 'ANANDA RESORTS'. Consequently, both parties were directed to participate in pre-litigation mediation before proceeding with the main litigation.
M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff, M/S Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd, interim relief in its suit against Rikesh Tiwari Trading As All In One Traders. The court recognized the strength of the 'BLUE HEAVEN' brand, noting its long history since 1972 and extensive portfolio of registered trademarks and copyrights across various cosmetic product lines. Crucially, the court directed the defendants to immediately take down listings of impugned products on major e-commerce platforms like Meesho and Amazon, affirming the plaintiff's rights against online infringement.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH; Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural matters concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement claim and associated revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal confirmed that parties can withdraw their claims during the appellate phase, provided no final judgment has become legally binding. By allowing the withdrawal, the court terminated the main proceedings and granted Avago a refund of 60% of its appeal court fees. This ruling provides clarity on the timing and procedural requirements for withdrawing actions within the UPC system.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH initiated proceedings against Mammut Sports Group AG and GmbH regarding infringement of its patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which covers specialized avalanche rescue transceivers (LVS). The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued a detailed decision addressing both the infringement claims and the counterclaim for revocation. Key rulings clarified principles of indirect infringement when user activation is required and established stringent criteria for implementing product destruction or recall measures to ensure permanent cessation of infringement.
Albemarle Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Albemarle Corporation appealed the refusal of its patent application (No. 2897/DELNP/2012) by the Controller of Patents, which cited lack of novelty and inventive step. During the appeal, the appellant sought to file an auxiliary claim set restricting the scope to a process aspect for cleaning polyurethane foam. The Court allowed this amendment and remanded the matter for fresh examination.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Goethe-Institut E.V. v.Abhishek Yadav & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Goethe-Institut E.V., a well-known cultural institute, against Abhishek Yadav and others. The plaintiff successfully argued that the defendant's use of similar marks like 'MAX MUELLER INSTITUTE' was likely to cause confusion among the public regarding their association with the established brand. The court found that the plaintiff had prima facie established its prior goodwill and reputation in the market for German language courses, warranting immediate protective relief pending the final trial.
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Lummus Novolen Technology Gmbh appealed a decision by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting its patent application for 'HIGH PERFORMANCE ZIEFLERNATTA CATALYST SYSTEMS.' The core dispute centered on whether the claimed process involved an inventive step, specifically regarding the use of diether compounds as internal donors in catalyst production. The High Court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that the invention was obvious in view of existing prior art documents.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG; Magna PT s.r.o.; Magna International France, SARL
In a procedural decision concerning EP 3 320 604 B1, the UPC Local Division allowed both parties to withdraw their respective claims. Valeo Electrification withdrew its patent infringement action against Magna entities, while the Defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and a license. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to the closure of complex IP litigation without a substantive ruling on validity or infringement.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Heraeus Electronics and Vibrantz focuses heavily on procedural consolidation. The court mandated that the claimant, Heraeus, submit a consolidated version of its formal claims by June 11, 2025. This move aims to streamline the proceedings, especially concerning how infringement claims relate to counterclaims for revocation across different jurisdictions. The parties are also urged to resume settlement discussions and establish a cost comparison.
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.