IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 56 of 189 · 5,670 total
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v.Ashok Kumar (Unkown)
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust against Ashok Kumar. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and exempted them from pre-institution mediation due to the urgent nature of the matter. Crucially, the court ordered a local commission to be conducted to inspect and inventory all infringing products bearing deceptively similar marks, thereby strengthening the plaintiff's case for permanent injunction.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Dainik Jagran News Papers Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark dispute, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the suit. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to defend against the use of the impugned mark by Defendant No. 1. Crucially, the court clarified that these dismissals do not prejudice the underlying claims regarding proprietary rights in the 'Dainik Jagran' trademark, which remain sub judice in other proceedings.
Xx And Anr v.Yy
The Delhi High Court registered the suit filed by Xx And Anr against Yy concerning trademark infringement and passing off related to the mark 'HARDWYN'. While a prima facie case was established, the court opted not to grant an immediate ad-interim injunction due to the defendant's existing registration. The court issued notice to the defendant for reply and granted several procedural reliefs to the plaintiffs, including exemption from pre-litigation mediation.
Pstgems Private Limited v.M/S Sonu Motor & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Pstgems Private Limited in its suit against M/S Sonu Motor & Ors. The court allowed the plaintiff, a health tech company selling nutraceutical products, to proceed with urgent measures despite seeking exemptions from pre-institution mediation and advance service. Crucially, the court appointed Local Commissioners to conduct an inventory of the alleged infringing goods and packaging materials, paving the way for immediate enforcement against suspected trademark and copyright infringement.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Infra Projects Pvt Ltd & Ors
In this trademark infringement suit, the Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking impleadment of third parties claiming proprietary rights in 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed these applications, finding them not to be necessary or proper parties to the current dispute concerning Defendant No. 1's use of the mark. However, the court clarified that the applicants' claims regarding their ownership rights will remain sub judice and subject to separate proceedings.
M/S Jagran Prakashan Ltd v.Jagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 011 218 B1. In light of ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court suspended the file inspection proceedings by agreement of all parties until a party or the applicant requests resumption. The plaintiff's request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court decided a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim concerning European Patent EP 2 387 547 B1, which relates to a valve actuation device for a liquid treatment container. The court found that the patent was valid in amended form (auxiliary requests) and that the defendants' replacement filter cartridges infringed the patent, while rejecting the main revocation request. Injunctive relief, information orders, and damages were granted in modified form, with costs split 50/50 for the infringement action and 90/10 against the revocation counterclaim.
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia submits an affidavit containing Wayback Machine screenshots of ceramic vape cartridges to show prior art against U.S. Patent 11,235,110. The evidence aims to prove the patent’s claims lack novelty.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
CyberSecure IPS petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Network Integrity Systems’ ’641 patent, seeking cancellation of 14 claims as anticipated or obvious over several fiber‑optic monitoring references. The petition relies on §§102 and 103 and an expert declaration.
Porta Sophia v.Ellis, Greg
Porta Sophia petitions the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 11,235,110 covering a vaporizer device for psychedelic compounds, asserting that the device, formulations, and isotopomer claims are fully anticipated or obvious by extensive prior‑art references.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s ’168 patent covering ammonia synthesis from natural gas. The petition relies on anticipation and obviousness arguments using five prior‑art references. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the review.
Canadian Solar (USA) Inc. et al. v.First Solar, Inc.
Canadian Solar petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑8 of First Solar’s 9,130,074 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple pre‑2008 publications describing SIPOS emitters, oxide layers, and antireflective coatings.
SK hynix Inc. v.Advanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of five claims of U.S. Patent 8,593,888 covering flash‑memory voltage regulation, alleging anticipation and obviousness over prior patents such as Tomita, Im, Nam, and Nakayama.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑11 and 17‑19 of Casale’s U.S. Patent 11,286,168. The petition argues that the claims are anticipated or obvious over a collection of prior‑art references, especially a 2007 IFA presentation and several earlier patents. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.CASALE SA
The PTAB granted institution for the IPR involving Topsoe and CASALE regarding patent 11286168. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
CYBERSECURE IPS, LLC et al. v.Network Integrity Systems, Inc.
The USPTO Board denied institution for IPR2025-01441 after a merits review. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the challenged claims.
Amgen Inc. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Amgen Inc. appealed an order by the Assistant Controller of Patents which held that claims 1-13 of Patent Application No. 5857/CHENP/2008 were not patentable due to various sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the claimed invention satisfied all requirements for protection and directing that the application proceed to grant.
Pharmacyclics Llc v.Shilpa Medicare Limited
The suit was filed by Pharmacyclics Llc seeking permanent injunction against the infringement of Registered Patent No. 262968 by Shilpa Medicare Limited. The parties subsequently entered into a successful settlement agreement through mediation.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr v.Anthem Biosciences Limited
The Plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain the Defendant from dealing in products that infringe their patent (IN 294424) related to Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including those for document production and exemption from mediation. In the main application for interim injunction, the Defendant provided an undertaking not to launch infringing products.
Sushil Kumar T/A Da Polo & Anr. v.The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P.
This appeal challenged a lower court's decision that rejected an application to dismiss a suit based on lack of jurisdiction. The respondent, holding registered trademarks like POLO, sued the petitioners (Da Polo) for infringement and passing off related to their use of similar marks online. The Delhi High Court upheld the Commercial Court's order, finding that since both parties were conducting business through interactive websites and e-commerce platforms within the court's jurisdiction, a valid cause of action existed.
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register a trademark application. The core issue revolves around whether a cited mark had been properly assigned to the appellant before the refusal order was issued. The court accepted notice and set procedural timelines for both parties, indicating that the matter is proceeding through the appellate process.
K.Gobinath v.Anugraha Valve Castings Limited
The Madras High Court addressed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the framing of issues in an ongoing trademark infringement suit. The petitioners argued that the court failed to frame an issue regarding the invalidity of the plaintiff's 'Anugraha' trademark registration, which they claimed was based on fraud and common usage. However, the High Court ultimately allowed the petition partly by directing the Commercial Court to frame specific additional issues concerning the validity of the mark.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. – Withdrawal of Intervention Application v.Ex Parte
This order concerns an application by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. to withdraw their application to intervene in appeal proceedings between LAMA France and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, finding that Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an intervention application under Rule 313, and that no costs decision was necessary.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the defendant's request to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a SEP infringement action concerning European Patent EP2380167. The defendant argued that the technical complexity of the MPEG-4 audio standard, the need to prepare a nullity counterclaim, the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations, international litigation coordination, and school holidays of key personnel justified an extension. The court held that the three-month deadline under Rule 23 RoP is already calibrated to accommodate such circumstances, including vacation periods, and that the defendant had been aware of the licensing demands since 2017.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, dated 21 August 2025, concerns Yealink's Request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese during an oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. Yealink, the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827, argued that interpretation was necessary because it is based in China and its representatives would have difficulty following the proceedings. The Court of Appeal denied the Request, holding that UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature, that parties must be represented by lawyers or patent attorneys familiar with the language of proceedings, and that the voluntary presence of company officials does not justify court-ordered interpretation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit three physical objects (BB40A-C) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request as untimely. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, finding that BSRP provided no explanation for why the exhibits could not have been filed together with its rejoinder submitted on 20 February 2025.
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.