IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 65 of 71 · 2,122 total
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Dr. Mariya Parvez & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application by Alkem Laboratories seeking to include a proposed defendant who had posted misleading content targeting its pharmaceutical products, PAN-D and PAN-40. Although the plaintiff initially sought to extend existing injunctions against this individual, the court noted that the impugned video had already been taken down. Consequently, the court dismissed the impleadment request but reaffirmed that the proposed defendant remains prohibited from using Alkem's 'PAN' family of marks in any videos, reserving the right for the plaintiff to seek further action if infringement recurs.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This procedural order in the UPC case involving Edwards Lifesciences and Meril Life Sciences addressed several ancillary applications, including cost decisions and requests for confidential information protection. The Court permitted the withdrawal of most pending applications but issued a specific protective measure regarding sensitive legal billing details. This decision highlights the practical application of confidentiality rules (Rule 262A RoP) in complex litigation, particularly concerning attorney-client privilege and fee structures.
Classic Legends Private Limited / Mr. Boman R. Irani v.The Official Liquidator of M/S Ideal Jawa Private Limited
The Karnataka High Court allowed appeals filed by Classic Legends Private Limited (and Mr. Boman R. Irani) against an earlier ruling concerning the trade marks of Ideal Jawa. The court ruled that since the company had not used or renewed its registered trade marks for decades, no goodwill would subsist, and the rights had dissipated due to non-use. This decision significantly impacts the value and enforceability of the brand in liquidation proceedings.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.K.Venkateshwara Rao
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited sought the rectification and removal of a trademark registration ('NICSON PHARMA') held by K.Venkateshwara Rao, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its own established mark 'SUN PHARMA'. The Madras High Court ultimately dismissed the petition. The court found that when comparing the two marks as a whole, there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the average consumer, thereby upholding the validity of the rival registration.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH; Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
In a significant preliminary objection ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim rejected arguments raised by Samsung Electronics challenging its jurisdiction and the validity of the patent assignment. The court held that complex issues concerning ownership and temporal scope must be addressed during the main infringement proceedings, not at the preliminary stage. This decision allows the infringement action to proceed, paving the way for a full examination of the merits and the contested legal arguments regarding the opt-out withdrawal.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA
In a procedural ruling before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH withdrew its infringement claim against Vantiva SA and its affiliates. Simultaneously, the defendants successfully withdrew their counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent EP 3 353 901. The court accepted both withdrawals, declaring the proceedings terminated. This case highlights how procedural agreements between parties can lead to a swift conclusion in complex UPC litigation, focusing on mutual consent rather than substantive merits.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In this procedural order, HL Display AB opposed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s request to deposit physical objects related to the infringement case EP2432351. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application. The court found that BSRP failed to provide a sufficient justification for filing these exhibits late, leading to the rejection of their procedural motion.
Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v.Oreo Healthcare
The plaintiffs, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products under the registered trademark 'HAEMOCAL', sued defendants for using the deceptively similar mark 'HEMOCAL' and copying their unique packaging and labeling. The court found that the marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among the public.
Genentech Inc. v.F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG, Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
In this significant pharmaceutical dispute, Genentech and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG sought urgent procedural measures against Organon and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc. The UPC Local Division granted both an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning the patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers the cancer medicine Perjeta®. This decision is a critical step in securing necessary data for the ongoing litigation regarding biosimilar launch (HLX11).
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer regarding various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants, citing EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force (specifically concerning the BA.1 variant). The Court ruled that while its competence is not retroactive, it defers the resolution of this jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the infringement action to proceed for now.
Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited v.Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd
The Bombay High Court allowed Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited's leave petition seeking to consolidate the cause of action for passing-off with the existing claim of trademark infringement against Rambos Lifesciences Pvt Ltd. The court found that since both causes of action arose from the same set of transactions, combining them was appropriate. Furthermore, the interim relief previously granted in the matter was directed to continue until the next hearing date.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 3 769 722, which covers a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves (TAVI). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the defendants' products literally infringe the patented technology. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of specialized medical device patents within the unified patent court framework, particularly in complex TAVI applications.
Sujatha Rajkumar v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Sujatha Rajkumar filed a Writ Petition seeking judicial intervention against the Registrar of Trade Marks for the undue delay in processing an application related to the assignment of her trademark 'VELVETTE'. The petitioner sought recognition of the subsequent proprietor based on an Assignment Deed. While the court did not rule on the merits of the assignment, it issued a binding direction to the Respondent to dispose of the pending application within six weeks, treating the counsel's assurance as a formal undertaking.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
In a significant decision for the LED industry, the UPC Local Division of Paris found Laser Components SAS liable for infringing Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s patent EP3404726. The court granted a permanent injunction against the sale and use of the infringing UVC LED chips across France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Furthermore, the respondent was ordered to provide extensive sales and distribution data, allowing the claimant to proceed with calculating full damages.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC addressed a request by MediaTek Germany GmbH to protect confidential information related to its licensing negotiations with Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court found that these documents constituted trade secrets and issued an order mandating strict confidentiality for all parties involved in the proceedings. This ruling reinforces the protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, even when public disclosure is otherwise expected.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This case involved an appeal by NJOY Netherlands B.V. challenging a decision from the Court of First Instance regarding the revocation of EP 2 875 740. The core issue was not the patent's validity, but procedural compliance. NJOY failed to pay the court fees for the appeal and subsequently waived its right to be heard on this point. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the entire appeal by default under Rule 229.4 RoP.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. Schnell s.p.a. case outlines the procedural path forward before the UPC Panel. The court addressed key issues, including the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) and the production of technical evidence. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate settlement on infringement value and costs ahead of the scheduled oral hearing.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd v.Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr.
Largan Precision Co., Ltd filed a suit against Honor Device Co., Ltd & Anr. alleging infringement of three specific patents related to camera lens assemblies. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants' Honor 200 series products infringe these patented technologies.
Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.
This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
In a complex infringement and revocation action, the UPC Milan Local Division issued a crucial procedural order regarding confidentiality. The court adopted an 'external eyes only' regime for highly sensitive documents, allowing access to unredacted information only by designated external counsel, experts, and specific individuals from each party. This decision provides a clear framework for managing trade secrets while ensuring fair trial rights in high-stakes patent litigation.
Microtex Energy Private Limited v.Microtek International Private Limited and Anr.
The Delhi High Court initiated proceedings in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 116/2025, where the petitioner sought the cancellation of the trademark 'MICROTEK TECHNOLOGY WE LIVE' (No. 3482800). The court issued notice to all respondents and set a timeline for filing replies and rejoinders. Several ancillary applications regarding document submission and procedural matters were also disposed of by the court.
Marelli Europe S.P.A. v.The Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Marelli Europe S.P.A. appealed against the Deputy Controller's order refusing grant of a patent application, citing lack of inventive step. The appellant argued that the rejection was mechanical, merely copying prior art extracts without providing reasoned justification for why the invention lacked inventive step. The Court agreed, finding the impugned order lacked proper application of mind.
Rajputana Investment And Finance Limited (doing business as BRD LUXE) v.Luxe Moto LLP
The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Rajputana Investment and Finance Limited against a lower court's decision to deny a temporary prohibitory injunction. The dispute centered on whether the term 'LUXE,' used in the plaintiff's registered trademark 'BRD LUXE,' was being infringed upon by the defendant's use of 'LUXE MOTO LLP.' The High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, noting that the claim hinged on the exclusivity of a potentially descriptive term. Consequently, the court allowed the defendants to continue using their mark pending the full trial.
Novartis AG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA; ZENTIVA K.S.
This UPC decision on costs addressed the compensation sought by Novartis following a dismissed application to intervene in a related main proceeding. The court emphasized that while legal costs must be proportionate under Art. 69 UPCA, the applicant bears the burden of proof for detailed cost substantiation. By failing to provide sufficient evidence justifying the extensive legal fees incurred across multiple firms, Novartis' claim was significantly reduced.
Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited v.Salahudeen Abdhullatheef
The Madras High Court addressed two petitions concerning trademark rectification in Class 9, involving Solidaire Digital Electronics Private Limited and Salahudeen Abdhullatheef. The court allowed the petition filed by Solidaire to expunge a prior mark (TM No.3882705), finding that its use predated the challenged registration. Conversely, the court dismissed Abdhullatheef's petition seeking rectification of his own mark, concluding that Solidaire's mark was deceptively similar and possessed superior priority in both use and registration.
East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited v.Anil Keshrwani And Ors
The Calcutta High Court admitted the plaint filed by East India Pharmaceutical Works Limited against Anil Keshrwani and Ors. The court granted necessary procedural leaves, including exemption from pre-institution mediation.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the rejection of its patent application no. 201917042060 by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The appellant also sought condonation for a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal.
BSN Medical GmbH v.Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, Advancis Medical Nederland B.V.
BSN Medical GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against Brightwake Ltd., Advancis Medical Deutschland GmbH, and Advancis Medical Nederland B.V. concerning European patents EP 3 831 350 and EP 3 033 058. Rather than proceeding to a full trial, the parties successfully reached an out-of-court settlement agreement. The UPC court confirmed this agreement, ensuring that the sensitive terms of the settlement remain confidential, providing a clear example of how settlements are formalized within the unified patent system.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Flextronics International Europe B.V.
This UPC decision addresses a motion for security for costs in an infringement case involving Headwater Research LLC and several Motorola/Flextronics entities concerning patent EP 3 110 072. The court found that the claimant, Headwater Research LLC, lacked sufficient financial standing to cover potential litigation costs, particularly given its business model as a patent licensing entity with limited operational scale. Consequently, the claimant was ordered to deposit EUR 200,000 for Motorola entities and EUR 100,000 for Flextronics International Europe B.V. This ruling underscores the court's power to enforce financial safeguards in complex UPC proceedings.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Volkswagen AG
In this procedural matter before the UPC Court of Appeal, Network System Technologies LLC sought the release of substantial security deposits previously ordered by the Munich Local Division. The security had been required to cover potential legal costs related to infringement proceedings against Volkswagen AG. Crucially, NTS subsequently withdrew its infringement actions at the lower court level. The Court of Appeal agreed that with the withdrawal of the main claims, the basis for maintaining the security vanished. This decision provides a clear procedural precedent regarding the timely release of funds when underlying litigation is terminated by the claimant.
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.