IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 63 of 71 · 2,122 total
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding security for costs in an ongoing infringement action involving TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR and Texas Instruments. The claimant challenged the initial order, arguing that the judge-rapporteur lacked competence to issue such a binding case management order and simultaneously deny leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal agreed, ruling that since security for costs is a case management matter, only the full panel can decide on leave to appeal. Consequently, the original order was revoked, and the case was referred back to the Court of First Instance for proper adjudication.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.BALLINNO B.V.
In this procedural order stemming from a revocation action, the UPC Central Division addressed the release of security for legal costs. Following a settlement agreement between Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH and BALLINNO B.V., the court granted the application to transfer the €25,000 security deposit from the defendant to the claimant. This decision highlights how procedural mechanisms can be adapted when parties reach an amicable resolution during litigation.
Sanofi SA (and various Sanofi entities) v.Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
In a procedural order concerning multiple infringement actions, the UPC Local Division Munich set key dates for the litigation between Sanofi and Zentiva. The court scheduled an Interim Conference via videoconference on July 17, 2025, followed by in-person oral hearings from October 14 to 17, 2025. This decision moves the complex pharmaceutical patent dispute closer to a substantive hearing, allowing both parties time to prepare their arguments and counterclaims.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
In this UPC case, Dolby International AB sued Epson France SAS (among others) for alleged infringement of EP 3 605 534B1. The defense raised a preliminary objection arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the claimant's withdrawal from the Opt-out regime was invalid. The Local Division of Hamburg dismissed this opposition, finding that the procedural requirements had been met and allowing the case to proceed. This decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for managing opt-outs within the UPC framework.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In this procedural application, Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought to have the infringement action against them declared manifestly inadmissible due to alleged issues with party representation. The UPC Central Division rejected this request, establishing a key principle that procedural defects like lack of valid representation do not automatically invalidate an action but require the court to grant time for remedy. This decision reinforces the requirement that 'manifest inadmissibility' must be immediately evident from the pleadings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This UPC decision addressed a complex provisional measures case concerning evidence preservation for an infringement action involving hybrid generators. The court upheld the initial order allowing inspection and data seizure but made key adjustments regarding access to sensitive materials. Most significantly, the court ruled that the respondent was no longer obligated to pay the daily coercive fines previously imposed due to non-compliance with IT disclosure requirements.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd v.Amul-Franchise.in & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted relief to Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (AMUL) in its ongoing trademark infringement suit. The court allowed AMUL to implead new parties, including the domain registrar and Google LLC, to pursue fraudulent activities related to their brand. Crucially, the court ordered the suspension and blocking of the infringing domain name www.educationdindia.com and directed the freezing of a specific bank account linked to the alleged infringement.
Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited v.Deepak Kumar Barnwal
This case involves Jay Baba Bakreswar Rice Mill Private Limited, which sought summary judgment against Deepak Kumar Barnwal for alleged infringement of its 'Swastik Brand' trademark used on rice. The petitioner claimed exclusivity over the mark despite having applied for registration and obtaining copyright protection. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed a material fact—a disclaimer in its own registration certificate limiting exclusive use. Consequently, the application was dismissed as an abuse of process.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd., Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
In this appeal concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled against Yealink's application. The court emphasized that while procedural fairness is important, the adversarial nature of UPC proceedings means such requests must be highly justified. The ruling clarifies that general difficulties faced by non-native speakers or company officials do not automatically mandate court-ordered translation services.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
This UPC decision addresses both infringement and revocation claims concerning EP 2 387 547 B1. While the court provided extensive legal guidance on patent scope, exhaustion, and indirect infringement, it ultimately found the defendants liable for damages due to infringement. Despite this finding of liability, the main lawsuit was dismissed, indicating a complex outcome where remedies were granted but the overall claim failed.
M/S Prakash Pipes Limited v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed a Rectification Petition filed by M/S Prakash Pipes Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks. The petition sought the cancellation and removal of the trade mark 'PARKASHPOWER' (Registration No. 4798175) from the register. With no objection from certain respondents, the court directed that the impugned mark be removed, thereby rectifying the trademark registry.
Pawan Kumar Mittal Proprietor, Salasar Dev Basmati House v.Vijay Gupta & Ors.
The Delhi High Court overturned a District Judge's refusal to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction in a trademark infringement case. The court held that the lower court failed to provide any reasoning for its disinclination, which is legally unsustainable when addressing such urgent relief. Citing precedent regarding passing off and infringement, the High Court emphasized the necessity of immediate action, including appointing a Local Commissioner, if a prima facie case exists.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr.
Nissan Motor Co. Ltd appealed an order by the Controller rejecting its patent application (3623/KOLNP/2013) due to lack of inventive steps. The court set aside the rejection, finding that certain cited prior art documents (D5 and D8) were inadmissible because they were published after the priority date.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division granted an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection in the dispute concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The case involves Genentech/Roche against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech regarding biosimilars of the cancer drug Perjeta®. This decision allows the Applicants to secure critical information necessary for their claims, highlighting the UPC's proactive role in managing complex pharmaceutical litigation.
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.
AMST – SYSTEMTECHNIK GMBH v.Government of India
The petitioner challenged an order treating its Patent Application No.3022/CHENP/2011 as withdrawn due to failure to request examination within the stipulated period. The court considered the sequence of events, noting that the petitioner intended to prosecute the application and citing previous judgments where similar facts led to non-withdrawal.
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.
TIRU v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC decision addressed a challenge to ex parte evidence preservation orders granted by the Paris Local Division. TIRU sought seizure and site inspections against MAGUIN regarding alleged infringement of its waste incineration patent (EP3178578). MAGUIN challenged these measures, arguing lack of urgency and bad faith on TIRU's part. The court ultimately rejected MAGUIN’s request, affirming that the initial urgent measures were justified given the competitive market environment.
Amycel LLC v.PL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Reliance Retail Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed Reliance Retail Limited to proceed with its trademark infringement suit against Ashok Kumar & Ors. The court granted several procedural exemptions, including waiving mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the matter involving mass consumer deception and financial fraud. Furthermore, the plaintiff was exempted from advanced service upon certain defendants, allowing the main suit concerning trademark rights (Tira) to be formally registered and proceed.
T T Krishnamachari And Co v.Commissioner of GST and Central Excise
M/s. T.T. Krishnamachari & Co appealed against demands for service tax on royalty charges collected by group companies for using their logo "TTK". The Department argued that the logo was used as a Trademark, attracting IPR Service tax. The Appellant contended that the logo was registered as an artistic work under Copyright Act and thus exempt from service tax.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 4 108 413 addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant to amend its revocation proceedings by introducing new prior art. The court rejected this application, reinforcing strict rules regarding the late introduction of evidence under Rule 263 RoP. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in patent searches and the procedural necessity of preventing undue delay or prejudice to the defendant's defense.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural matters within a larger infringement action concerning EP 3 646 825. The court lifted all existing deadlines related to the cost decision and confidentiality protection applications, following arguments from the defendants regarding the impossibility of compliance under provisional protective measures. This ruling is significant as it provides necessary procedural relief, ensuring that parties can properly engage in ancillary proceedings without being unduly constrained by conflicting interim orders.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the court addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Bhagat Textile Engineers against Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG. The core issue was whether exceptional circumstances existed to halt the enforcement of a prior infringement judgment and associated penalties. The court ruled against Bhagat, emphasizing that merely claiming parallel proceedings or 'considerable doubts' is insufficient. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC appeals.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a cost determination proceeding initiated by Edwards Lifesciences against Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. While the court found that the respondents were liable for the procedural costs totaling EUR 244,000 (including amounts agreed upon in earlier proceedings), it definitively rejected the claimant's request to have these costs paid with interest. The ruling clarifies a critical distinction within UPC procedure: while damages claims may include compensation for time value of money, standard cost reimbursement does not automatically carry an interest component unless explicitly provided by law.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.
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.