IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 60 of 140 · 4,175 total
Vikas Abhimanyu Gupta v.Dive Marketing Private Limited
In this interim application concerning a commercial IP suit, the Bombay High Court addressed the respondent's willingness to withdraw certain trademarks. The court directed the respondent to file an affidavit from its responsible officer within one week, indicating that the matter is proceeding through procedural steps rather than a final judgment on infringement or validity.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd & Anr. v.Janricsan Pharma P Ltd & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd against Janricsan Pharma P Ltd. The court found a prima facie case for trademark infringement, noting the potential for dangerous public confusion due to the similarity between the parties' pharmaceutical product names. This protective order restrains the defendants from manufacturing or selling products under marks deemed deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademarks until the final hearing.
M/s. Ttk Prestige Limited v.Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali
In a case involving trademark and copyright infringement, M/s. TTK Prestige Limited successfully reached a memorandum of compromise with the defendant, Mr. Kailashkumar Punmaji Mali. The court accepted this settlement, decreeing the suit in its favor. Crucially, the judgment also allowed all rectification petitions filed by the plaintiff, leading to the expungement of several deceptively similar trade mark and copyright registrations from the respective registries.
Mr. Bhushanam Rayelly / M/s.Living Seed Technologies LLP v.M/s.Karthikeya Crop Technologies
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of an impugned trademark (No. 4972011). The court found that the petitioner had been using their mark ('SUPER AMAN') continuously since 2009 for agricultural products like paddy, establishing prior use. Given the striking similarity between the marks and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the registration granted to the respondent was deemed without sufficient cause.
Lotus Herbals Private Limited v.Nishtu Enterprises & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Lotus Herbals Private Limited to implead a new entity, Jhalak Cosmetics Store, as a defendant in its trademark infringement suit. This decision was based on the plaintiff's discovery that the new store was selling counterfeit products using the infringing 'LOTUS' mark and trade dress. Furthermore, the court extended the existing interim injunction to this newly added defendant and granted extensive powers to a Local Commissioner to conduct search, seizure, and document examination at the premises of the infringer.
Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerned a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 2 839 403, in which the defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) sought a three-week extension of time to file their rejoinder and reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation. The defendants argued they needed additional time to respond to new technical arguments involving third-party-developed software applications and security environments. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding justified exceptional circumstances existed, and extended the relevant deadlines to 11 August 2025.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Respondent
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
Central Division Paris Seat Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) delivered on 16/07/2025 No. App_25881/2025 UPC_CFI_484/2025 Claimant (Applicant): KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH Schellingstraße 35, 80799 Muni
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Husqvarna AB filed an infringement action on 16 April 2025 against POSITEC Germany GmbH concerning European patent EP 3978304 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. POSITEC subsequently applied on 23 June 2025 to change the language of the proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, citing the linguistic profile of its parent group's legal and technical staff and the burden of conducting proceedings in German. Husqvarna opposed the application and requested its dismissal. The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order on 16 July 2025 addressing the language of the proceedings, establishing that fairness requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including the defendant's working environment and communication channels.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Respondent
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
Petitioner EKO seeks IPR of Nine Stars’ 10,822,165 B2 automatic trash‑can patent, asserting that a 2014 Chinese filing (Wang) anticipates and makes obvious all 24 claims. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
ASUSTeK Computer Inc. et al. v.Nokia Technologies Oy
ASUS has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering grouping of image frames in video coding. The petition asserts that claims 8‑11 are obvious over MPEG‑1 and the Kim patent, and claim 9 over MPEG‑1 combined with Yagasaki. No claim constructions are proposed.
Guangzho EKO Trading Development Co., Ltd. (aka EKO Development Ltd.) et al. v.Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc.
The PTAB instituted IPR proceedings against Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc., finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-24 of patent 10822165 are anticipated or obvious over the prior art reference Wang. The Board accepted Petitioner's arguments regarding functional equivalency, particularly concerning 'automatic driving arrangement' and components like the servo motor.
Piyush Agrawal v.Velbiom Probiotics Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court issued a significant interim order in the trademark infringement suit filed by Piyush Agrawal against Velbiom Probiotics. The court granted an initial restraint, requiring the defendants to confine their use of the mark 'Happy Cultures' solely to Prebiotic and Probiotic products until further hearing. Furthermore, the plaintiff was permitted to file additional documents, while the court also exempted the case from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to its urgent nature.
Elite Gold Ltd v.The Asst Registrar Of Trade
The Calcutta High Court overturned an earlier decision that had expunged seven registered trademarks of 'KOPIKO' due to alleged lack of evidence of use. The appellant, Elite Gold Ltd, argued that they were a well-known international proprietor using their products through distributors. Recognizing the need for further evidence, the court set aside the rectification order and remanded the matter back to the Controller for a fresh hearing, allowing the appellant to adduce additional documents.
UTO Nederland B.V. v.Tilaknagar Industries Ltd.
The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech SE, Promosome LLC, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer, Inc., Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer AB, Pfizer SAS v.Promosome LLC, The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU, VALINEA ENERGIE
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’ap
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Respondent
Divisione Locale di Milano ORDINANZA del Tribunale Unificato dei Brevetti Tribunale di primo grado Divisione Locale di Milano depositata il 15.7.2025 RICORRENTE PIRELLI TYRE s.p.a. RESISTENTI 1. KINGTYRE DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 2. TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD. Brevetto In
UPC Decision UPC-000554 v.Respondent
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing) in a patent infringement action brought by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against ASUSTek entities concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The presiding judge ordered an in-person hearing in English on July 21, 2025, to be held entirely in private due to the confidential nature of the FRAND topics to be discussed. The parties were directed to submit a participant list by July 18, 2025.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 15 juillet 2025 concernant une demande de révision d’une ordonnance de conservation des preuves EN-TETE (i) Lors de l’examen de la demande de conservation des preuves, la Juridiction exerce son pouvoir d’
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins settled their PTAB post‑grant review, filing a joint request to keep the settlement documents confidential under 35 U.S.C. §327(b). The Board was asked to treat the agreement and upstream consent as business confidential information.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies and Johns Hopkins University settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 12,115,233, leading the PTAB to terminate the post‑grant review before institution.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC jointly filed a motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317. The motion seeks Board approval to treat the agreement as confidential business information.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373. The Board terminated the proceeding by grant of a joint motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
ITM Isotope Technologies Munich SE v.The Johns Hopkins University et al.
ITM Isotope Technologies challenges Johns Hopkins’ U.S. Patent 12,115,233, arguing that its FAP‑α imaging claims are obvious, lack enablement, are indefinite, and double‑patented. The petition seeks institution of the PGR and cancellation of claims 1‑4.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Pat. 8,884,373, asserting that the dual‑gate semiconductor device claims are obvious over Tamaki, Igarashi, and Sumi publications and their combinations. The petition argues the examiner erred by ignoring relevant prior‑art disclosures.
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.