IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 60 of 71 · 2,122 total
Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH
This UPC case focused on procedural jurisdiction and admissibility rather than the merits of infringement. The claimant, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, filed an infringement suit in Munich against S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH regarding patent EP 3 685 783. The respondents argued that the case was inadmissible because a similar action was pending elsewhere under Article 33(2) EPC. The court ruled in favor of the claimant, confirming Munich's jurisdiction by clarifying that an appeal does not constitute a 'case pending before another local chamber.'
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd.
Qualcomm Incorporated initiated a patent infringement action against several mobile technology companies, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co., Ltd. However, before any substantive decision was reached, Qualcomm filed a request to withdraw the suit due to reaching a settlement with Defendant 1. The UPC Local Division Munich permitted this withdrawal, declaring the proceedings closed. This case highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding voluntary withdrawal and clarifies the rules governing court fee reimbursement in such scenarios.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited, granting a permanent injunction against Boutique Spirit Brands Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court found that the defendant's mark 'MYRON' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s established brand 'KYRON,' particularly as both were used for French Brandy. Furthermore, the court cancelled the defendant's registered trademarks ('BSB MYRON') following rectification petitions, effectively protecting the plaintiff's market exclusivity.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the scope of fee refunds when patent litigation is withdrawn. Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought a 60% refund of court costs after settling its infringement case against OPPO and OROPE, arguing the complexity warranted an 'exceptional' status under Rule 370.9(e). However, the Local Division upheld the initial ruling, limiting the refund to 40%. The judgment emphasizes that while complex cases generate high workloads, this factor alone is insufficient to override the general principle of proportional fee recovery based on the stage of proceedings.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited v.Nicenic International Group Company Limited & Ors.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its registered trademarks, 'Niva' and 'Bupa,' through content creation and circulation. The Delhi High Court acknowledged the trademark infringement claims and noted that the matter required specialized handling. Consequently, the court ordered the papers to be placed before the IP Division of the Court for appropriate listing.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Frankfinn Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. v.M/S Fly High Institute & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Frankfinn Aviation Services against M/S Fly High Institute & Ors. The court found that the Defendant's use of marks like 'FLY HIGH INSTITUTE' was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'FLY HIGH'. Given the high reputation and goodwill associated with the Plaintiff's mark, the court held that immediate restraint was necessary to prevent irreparable harm from infringement and passing off.
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.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
In this procedural case, the UPC Local Division allowed Brita SE to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation against EP 2 387 547. Although a decision on the revocation claim had previously been rendered by the Panel, the court ruled that withdrawal was permissible because no final judgment existed and the appeal period remained open. This ruling emphasizes procedural flexibility within the UPC framework, allowing parties to adjust their litigation strategy even after initial rulings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request for an extension of time related to a penalty payment enforcement action concerning EP 2 028 981. The court balanced the parties' interests against the need for efficient proceedings, ultimately granting only a two-week extension. This decision reinforces the principle that procedural extensions are limited and do not negate the defendant's original obligation to provide information in due time.
Abbott Laboratories v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
The Delhi High Court allowed Abbott Laboratories to appeal the rejection of its 'ENSURE' trademark application. The original rejection was based on insufficient evidence supporting a very early claimed date of use (31.12.1999). The court granted liberty for the Appellant to amend its user claim, restricting it to 23.04.2012, and directed the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh. This decision effectively restored the trademark application to its original status.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf issued an order to address significant ambiguities regarding patent ownership and assignment validity. The Claimant, Ona Patents SL, was challenged on inconsistencies related to its chain of title, particularly concerning assignments made by Ekahau Oy (Counter-Defendant 2). The court did not rule on infringement or revocation but instead mandated the submission of critical legal documents, such as Asset Purchase Agreements and board resolutions, before the written procedure could proceed.
Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v.Ankit Chaudhary Alias Ankit Sheoran
The Delhi High Court addressed several applications in a trademark infringement suit concerning 'Dream 11'. The court allowed the plaintiffs to implead NameCheap, Inc. and the unknown domain registrant as new defendants, recognizing the need to pursue those controlling the infringing domain 'dreamtips11.com'. Furthermore, the existing interim injunctions were extended and reinforced against these newly added parties, mandating them to cease trademark misuse and disclose relevant KYC details.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd v.Micky Metals Ltd And Anr
The Calcutta High Court granted Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd liberty to file a supplementary affidavit, allowing them to introduce two key letters from the private respondent into evidence. The court also directed the petitioner to ensure proper representation for the Registrar of Trademark (Respondent No. 2). This interim order keeps the trademark dispute active and sets the matter for further hearing on August 29, 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc.
In a procedural decision before the Mannheim Local Division of the UPC, Huawei Technologies withdrew its infringement claim against MediaTek. Concurrently, MediaTek's subsidiary also withdrew its counterclaim for revocation of the patent EP 3 567 731. The court formally accepted both withdrawals and declared the proceedings terminated. While no substantive judgment was reached on infringement or validity, the decision provided clarity on procedural matters, including the partial reimbursement of court fees.
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.
M/S. Nichino Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Registry's refusal to register the word mark 'METAMORPH' in Class 5 (pesticides/herbicides). The court found that the Registrar erred by assuming prior long-term use of a cited mark, especially since that application was initially filed on a 'proposed to be used' basis. The judgment mandates the Registry to re-examine the case, considering the appellant's claims regarding non-similarity and potential entitlement under Section 12 of the Trademarks Act.
SSAB TECHNOLOGY AB v.DEEPAK DINESH MEHTA AND OTHERS
The Delhi High Court issued a complex order in the trademark infringement suit, partially granting relief to SSAB Technology Ab. The court decreed the suit regarding specific permanent injunctions against the defendants concerning their use of infringing marks (HARDOX/Leomet-alloys). However, the court noted that the plaintiff declined an offer for full settlement and directed the suit to remain pending on remaining money claims, setting the stage for further litigation.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 476 616, the UPC Local Division Mannheim separated the infringement proceedings related to the UK national part. This decision was driven by the pending ECJ ruling (C-339/22) on international jurisdiction under Brussels Ia Regulation. The court aimed to balance the need for timely enforcement of patent rights against the necessity of properly addressing a fundamental question of European law, ensuring both parties have an opportunity to comment on the ECJ's decision.
FMC Corporation & Ors. v.Natco Pharma Limited
The plaintiffs, FMC Corporation & Ors., filed an application seeking an interim injunction against Natco Pharma Limited, alleging infringement of their patented Compound of Formula 3 (IN'645). The suit was a quia timet action concerning the product 'Cyantraniliprole 10.26% OD'. Despite the defendant having already launched the product, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application for an interim injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case and noted that damages could be compensable at trial.
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.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Preet Kamal Grewal And Anr.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Delhi High Court for the removal of a conflicting trademark, 'KINDPAN,' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 5. The court ruled that the registration was unsustainable because Mankind is the prior adopter and well-known proprietor of the 'KIND' family of marks in the pharmaceutical sector. By allowing the petition, the High Court reinforced the principle that established goodwill and extensive use grant heightened protection to a trademark owner against confusingly similar registrations.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted protection for confidential information submitted by 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience. The court ruled that specific cost items were indeed trade secrets and restricted access to them. This decision reinforces the practical application of Art. 58 UPCA, balancing the need for confidentiality with the right to an effective remedy in complex litigation.
Parul Ruparelia And Anr v.Camme Wang And Anr
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the petitioners' interim relief application in a trademark infringement suit concerning the mark 'PL SUPREME'. The court found that the respondents, who are Chinese manufacturers, had prior use of the mark since 2014. Furthermore, the court heavily scrutinized the petitioners' conduct, finding prima facie evidence of underinvoicing and financial irregularities, which led to the dismissal of their claims based on principles of 'clean hands.'
M/S. Loreal v.Loren Beautifiers Pvt. Ltd.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an application filed by M/S. Loreal seeking the cancellation of the mark "LOREN HAIR OIL" registered in Class 3. The sole ground for cancellation was non-use, as the respondent failed to demonstrate bona fide use of the trademark for the statutory period. Given the uncontroverted allegation of non-use, the Court directed that the impugned mark be removed/rectified from the register, reinforcing the importance of continuous commercial activity in maintaining trademark rights.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE et al. (Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.)
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich rejected a request by major pharmaceutical companies (BioNTech and Pfizer group) to compel their opponent, Promosome LLC, to disclose detailed raw data from expert reports. The Defendants argued that they needed access to this data to properly defend against infringement claims related to mRNA technology for SARS-CoV-2. The Court ruled that the request lacked specificity regarding contested facts and reiterated that parties are generally free to determine their own supporting evidence.
Punjab Fc Private Limited v.Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited
Punjab Fc Private Limited filed a petition seeking the removal (rectification) of the 'PFC' trademark registered under application no. 4611789 in Class 25, which was held by Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited. The petitioner highlighted a prior favorable judgment regarding an identical device mark. The Court accepted notice and directed that formal notices be issued to all parties, setting timelines for filing replies and rejoinders before listing the matter further.
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.
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.