IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 63 of 140 · 4,175 total
Vinit Dua v.Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors.
The Delhi High Court allowed the plaintiff, Vinit Dua, to register his trademark infringement claim against Prashant Mani Tripathi & Ors. The court found that a prima facie case of infringement was made out because the defendant's mark, 'AFFINITY ELEVE,' is highly likely to deceive customers into associating it with the plaintiff's registered mark, 'AF FINITY.' Consequently, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the confusingly similar mark while the suit proceeds.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Inc.
Nera Innovations Ltd., an Ireland-based patent licensing company, sued several entities of the Xiaomi group for infringement of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless energy receivers, based on the use of such devices in smartphones including the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the patent proprietor defended the patent in auxiliary requests. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed, among other things, the admissibility of a high number of auxiliary requests with a narrow core, the prohibition of intermediate generalization under Article 123(2) and (3) EPC, and the relevance of a prior art citation concerning near-field communication antenna tuning as opposed to wireless power receivers.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, with Aesculap AG as claimant and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) as defendant. The order addressed two procedural questions: how to treat a defendant's absence from the oral hearing when it had previously informed the Registry of its non-attendance, and what level of specificity is required when contesting the claimant's substantiated infringement allegations. The Court ruled that a non-appearing defendant who had informed the Registry would be treated as relying solely on its written submissions, and that defendants must specifically address the claimant's concrete factual allegations rather than relying on general statements about the burden of proof.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Respondent
This preliminary order was issued in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2437696, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. The Claimant sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case, requesting that its infringement claims be based on the B2 version of the patent rather than the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, reasoning that under Article 68 EPC, the B2 version had retroactive effect from the original grant date, meaning the B2 text was always the operative version. The revised Statement of Claim reflecting the correct B2 text was admitted into the proceedings.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. LTD. and Intercurrency Software LLC jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-01586 after reaching a confidential settlement over a foreign‑exchange trading patent.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac’s IPR against Champion Power’s generator patent continues after Harbor Freight Tools and MWE Investments settle and exit the case. The Board granted motions to terminate the settling parties and keep the settlement confidential.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
Harbor Freight Tools and Champion Power Equipment filed a joint request asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent file.
NIUM PTE. LTD. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
NIUM PTE. Ltd. and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
MWE Investments and Champion Power Equipment have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,143,145 and jointly request that the settlement be treated as business confidential information. The petition also seeks MWE's withdrawal from the proceeding.
Fortinet, Inc. v.Netskope, Inc.
Fortinet has filed an IPR petition challenging Netskope's U.S. Patent 8,327,426, which covers federated single‑sign‑on methods. The petitioner alleges lack of novelty and obviousness based on the Hinton and Burch prior‑art references, seeking cancellation of all thirteen claims.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01457 after reviewing the petitioner's likelihood of prevailing. This allows the case to move forward to a merits trial.
Vijay v.Havells India Limited
This order addresses procedural matters concerning a suit filed by an unnamed plaintiff against Vijay, which involves claims of trademark infringement, copyright violation, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The petitioner (Vijay) is defending this suit, and the court directed that the petition be formally registered as CM (Main) (IPD) to ensure proper handling within the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court.
Natco Pharma Limited v.Array Biopharma Inc & Anr.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a revocation petition against Indian Patent IN304285 before the Delhi High Court. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner regarding document submission and extensions, while formally initiating the main revocation proceedings.
Dolby International Ab v.Lava International Limited
Dolby filed a suit claiming infringement of its SEPs related to AAC technology against Lava. During negotiations, which failed, Dolby sought interim relief and the court directed Lava to provide security. The court subsequently ordered Lava to deposit or guarantee INR 20,08,06,293.92 covering past sales (2019-2024) as a pro tem measure.
M/s. K.A.S.Zainulabdin And Co. v.K.G.Subramaniam and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration, specifically targeting the mark '399 BRAND K.G.S. SUBRAMANI AND CO' in Class 25. The court granted the relief after both parties reached an agreement: the contesting respondent agreed to change its trade mark, and the petitioner consented to this change. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the disputed entry from the register within 30 days.
Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. v.Kapoor Bike Point
The Delhi High Court granted several interim reliefs in favor of Hero Investcorp Private Limited & Anr. against Kapoor Bike Point, affirming the seriousness of the alleged IP infringements. The court exempted the plaintiffs from pre-litigation mediation and advance service to the defendant, recognizing the urgent need for protection due to potential consumer deception. Crucially, the Court granted an injunction based on trademark and copyright infringement claims, allowing for a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant's premises.
Zepto Private Limited v.Mohammad Arshad & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Zepto Private Limited seeking the removal and cancellation of a specific trademark registration (No. 2773518) from Class 9. The court granted procedural directions, allowing the petitioner to file additional documents and setting timelines for both parties to submit replies, rejoinders, and a combined written synopsis. This order moves the case forward in the process of challenging the validity or use of the registered mark.
Orient Electric Limited v.R. R. Kabel Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed the petition filed by Orient Electric Limited seeking the removal/cancellation of a specific trademark registration held by R. R. Kabel Limited in Class 11. The court initiated the formal proceedings, issuing notices to the respondents and setting detailed timelines for both parties to file their respective replies and conjoint written synopsis. This order moves the case forward into the substantive phase of challenging the existing trademark registration.
Krishan Lal Bansal v.Union Of India
The Rajasthan High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Krishan Lal Bansal, who challenged the Registrar of Trademarks for incorrectly showing his 'Ganesh Chap' trademark status as 'Removed'. The court found that the initial registration was flawed—issued years late but confined to a past date (03.02.1996). Furthermore, the court emphasized that even if renewal was neglected, the Respondent failed in its duty by not issuing proper notices before cancellation. Consequently, the Registrar was mandated to issue a renewed trademark certificate with future validity.
Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd. v.Vivekananda Chintapalli
The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.
Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.FUJIFILM Corporation
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy GmbH, Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Platform Distribution, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC.
This case concerns an application by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS against The Walt Disney Company and several related entities regarding four European patents. The dispute arose after the applicants obtained an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) on May 27, 2025, and sought to serve it on the respondents' representatives via the special electronic lawyer mailbox (beA). The respondents' representatives refused to issue a confirmation of receipt, claiming improper service, while simultaneously communicating that their clients would not seek an Anti-Suit Injunction. The Local Chamber Mannheim, presided over by Judge Tochtermann, addressed the refusal to accept service under Rule 206 of the Rules of Procedure.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
The Walt Disney Company entities, as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. concerning EP3259902, applied for a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Article 49(5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP before the Local Division Mannheim. The Claimant opposed the request, arguing that all defendants should submit their own corresponding applications or alternatively be given the opportunity to be heard before any decision is issued. The President of the Court of First Instance ruled that the position of all parties potentially affected by the requested change must be heard in the context of such an application.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a security for costs order. The Munich Local Division's judge-rapporteur had ordered Chint to provide security for costs in favor of JingAo in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 787 541. The Court of Appeal declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that a security for costs order issued by a judge-rapporteur is a case management order under R. 333.1 RoP that may only be appealed after review by the panel of the Court of First Instance.
Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH, Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH v.TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, has brought suit against Texas Instruments Incorporation and two of its German subsidiaries. The order, issued by judge-rapporteur Böttcher, sets out preliminary views and questions for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 22 July 2025, addressing issues including the requirements for defending dependent claims, claim construction regarding the term 'interrupt,' and the interpretation of 'directly coupled' in the relevant patent features.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. v.Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co.
Ram Roop Singh Trading As M/S Durga Trading Co. filed a commercial suit against Girjesh Singh Trading As M/S Murli Trading Co., alleging infringement of trademarks and copyrights related to edible products. The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications, granting the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation due to the potential health risks associated with substandard goods. Furthermore, the court condoned a delay in re-filing the suit, allowing the main plaint seeking permanent injunction for infringement to be registered and listed before the court.
M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering Works v.Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry against Hindustan Technocast regarding the trademark 'BADAL'. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's registration was obtained through fraud and fabricated documents. However, the court held that while anomalies in the respondent's documentation were noted, the petitioner failed to establish the veracity of their claims on the face of it. Consequently, the cancellation of the long-standing mark could not be granted without a thorough evidentiary test before the Trial Court.
UltraTech Cement Limited v.Jai Shree Krishna Cement & Anr.
The Bombay High Court allowed an interim application filed by UltraTech Cement, finding that the defendants were willfully disobeying a prior court order restraining them from using deceptively similar trademarks. To enforce compliance and stop the continuing wrong, the Court ordered the attachment of the bank accounts belonging to two defendant partners for a period of six months. This action underscores the judiciary's willingness to use stringent measures under Order XXXIX, Rule 2A CPC to protect registered well-known trademarks against persistent infringement.
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.