IP Cases — 2025
2,122 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 71 · 2,122 total
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v.S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)
M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional question: whether the Unified Patent Court can hear an independent claim for damages following a successful national infringement judgment. The court affirmed that since the damage claim is rooted in patent infringement, it falls under the scope of Article 32(1)(a) EPC. This ruling provides significant clarity and predictability for patentees seeking to enforce their rights across the UPC system.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. v.Mr. Dhanraj Khatri And Anr.
Dhunseri Petrochem And Tea Ltd. filed an application seeking rectification of a copyright registration held by its opponents, alleging that the respondent's artistic work was a deceptive and substantial reproduction of the petitioner's established labels ('Lal Ghora' and 'Kala Ghora'). The petitioner demonstrated long-standing use and exclusive association with their distinctive packaging designs for tea. The court found that the respondent's design was deceptively similar, noting only cosmetic changes while retaining the core features and color scheme. Consequently, the registration of the impugned artistic work was directed to be expunged.
Pataka Industries Private Limited v.Verinder Cigrate Store And Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in the trademark infringement suit filed by Pataka Industries against Verinder Cigrate Store. The court granted exemptions from advance service, filing certified copies, and mandatory pre-institution mediation, allowing the case to proceed swiftly. Crucially, the court permitted a Local Commissioner to execute a commission to seize stock bearing similar marks ('S02 PATAKHA') to the Plaintiff's registered trademark '502 PATAKA', signaling strong judicial support for immediate injunctive relief.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Akums Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Limited filed an Appeal under Section 117A(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 26.12.2024 which rejected its patent application (No. 202211027823). The court also disposed of applications regarding exemption and condoned a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal.
Gruner Ag v.Guangxi Ramway Technology Co. Ltd.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions and damages against the defendants for alleged patent infringement. The court registered the plaint as a suit, issued summons, and set timelines for filing written statements and replication. Various interim applications regarding stay, additional documents, and directions to Customs were also addressed.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In this UPC infringement case, the claimant sought to enforce EP 3 805 415 against Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH for offering and distributing metal plates. The defendants requested an extension of time to file their defense due to ongoing laboratory analysis of material samples. The Local Division granted a one-week extension, recognizing the need for thorough preparation, but denied requests for further delays, setting clear boundaries on procedural flexibility.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of protecting trade secrets within a high-stakes UPC infringement and revocation action between QIAGEN Sciences, LLC and bioMérieux S.A. The Court meticulously balanced the need for transparency with the imperative to protect sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding peptide sequences and analytical results. By granting specific confidentiality classifications and access restrictions, the ruling sets a strong precedent for managing proprietary data in complex biotech litigation before the UPC.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc v.Manish Vijay & Ors.
Major League Baseball Properties Inc successfully petitioned for the rectification (cancellation) of the trademark 'BLUE-JAY' registered in favor of Manish Vijay & Ors. The court recognized that MLB is the prior adopter and user of the mark, having used it since 1976 globally. Despite procedural hurdles regarding previous opposition attempts, the Delhi High Court ruled that the similarity between the marks constituted an attempt to ride upon MLB's established goodwill, thereby directing the Registrar to cancel the infringing registration.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request by the Applicant, 10x Genomics, to expand access rights within the confidentiality club for its legal representatives' firm. The Applicant sought to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings due to staffing issues. The Court partially granted this request, allowing the replacement of two specific members but firmly rejecting the broader proposal to grant blanket access to all paralegals.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This procedural order addresses a request by TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC to amend its infringement action to include the AM67x product as an attacked embodiment. The court recognized the complexity of balancing the claimant's need to address new market activity against the defendants' right to prepare their defense. Instead of making a final ruling immediately, the judge postponed the decision until the oral hearing while granting the defendants time to respond in substance to the proposed amendment.
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a motion to review an urgent order for evidence preservation, inspection, and seizure granted by Prinoth S.p.A. against Xelom s.r.l. The dispute centers on alleged infringement of patents related to snow groomers (battipista). The Tribunal upheld the original protective measure, emphasizing that preliminary injunctions based on urgency require only a statistical likelihood of evidence destruction, not concrete proof. This ruling provides important guidance on the scope and quantification of damages in urgent IP proceedings.
Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd v.Suraj Collection And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Esme Consumers Pvt Ltd against Suraj Collection And Anr, finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off. The court determined that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was calculated to deceive consumers and erode the plaintiff's established goodwill associated with its cosmetic products. Consequently, the defendants were immediately restrained from using the infringing marks until the final hearing.
Kanishk Sinha v.State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Kanishk Sinha appealed against an order that disposed of a writ petition filed by e-rickshaw manufacturers seeking registration authority direction. The original dispute involved the patent holder (appellant) seeking damages and injunctions against infringers for manufacturing without a license. The court held that questions regarding exclusive rights, compulsory licensing, and compensation are matters for pending civil suits or statutory fora under the Patents Act, not writ jurisdiction.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural dispute regarding the scope of confidentiality protection in patent litigation. Ericsson sought an 'external eyes only' regime for sensitive licensing data, arguing it was necessary to prevent antitrust conflicts. The Panel rejected this request, emphasizing that such exceptional restrictions require a high burden of proof showing concrete risks of anticompetitive harm. Although the application for review was dismissed, leave to appeal was granted, setting up a potential precedent on balancing confidentiality and competition law within the UPC.
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
ITC Limited v.The Controller of Patents Designs and Trademark
ITC Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,' which was denied under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the invention on grounds that its use could cause serious prejudice to human health or public order. ITC argued that the rejection was arbitrary, lacked reasoned basis, and violated principles of natural justice due to the introduction of unsupplied documents. The Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Controller for a fresh decision after ensuring all parties are heard.
Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ashok Kumar (John Doe)
The Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Hero Investcorp Pvt Ltd in its suit against an unidentified entity manufacturing and selling counterfeit two-wheeler spare parts. The court recognized the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks and trade dress associated with 'HERO GENUINE PRODUCTS.' Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to execute a search and seizure commission at the Defendant's premises to recover infringing goods, setting the stage for further litigation.
Miss Kiara Rawat Through Mrs. Lovely Gusain v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner sought directions from the Delhi High Court regarding the high cost of the drug Zolgensma. The petitioner requested that the Union of India facilitate the issuance of compulsory licenses under the Patents Act, 1970, and also asked for the formation of a committee to raise funds for her treatment.
Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd v.Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of Modern Snacks Pvt Ltd's suit against Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd., which sought permanent injunction and damages related to trademark infringement. The court noted that the defendant had already filed an independent suit (CS(COMM) 460/2020) against the plaintiff on the same grounds of trademark infringement. Citing Section 142(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the court held that the present suit could not proceed further, allowing the plaintiff to raise all contentions in the existing cross-suit.
Novartis Ag v.Natco Pharma Limited
The case was filed for a permanent injunction against NATCO PHARMA for infringing on Novartis's Indian Patent No. 233161. The parties reached an amicable settlement during the proceedings.
Dunlop International Limited (and Dunlop Slazenger Group Ltd.) v.Glorious Investment Limited And Anr.
The Calcutta High Court set aside multiple appeals concerning the registration of the 'Dunlop' word mark. The core dispute revolved around the validity of assignments made by Dunlop India Ltd. during its liquidation period, which were used by Glorious Investment Limited to secure trademark rights in various classes. Given serious questions regarding fraud, natural justice violations, and the limited jurisdiction of the Registrar concerning assignment validity, the Court remanded all matters back for a fresh hearing after ensuring all parties are heard.
Valary Lab Private Ltd v.G1 Therapeutics Inc & Anr.
The petitioner, Valary Lab Private Ltd, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Patent No. 434029 and an injunction against threats related to its alleged infringement. The court allowed applications for additional documents and granted notice to all parties. The case is set for re-notification on November 12, 2025.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for provisional measures in an infringement case involving insulin pump technology. Insulet sought disclosure and injunctions against EOFlow regarding the alleged infringement of EP 4 201 327. While settlement discussions occurred, the court issued a detailed order setting out specific requests, including mandatory disclosure of origin and distribution channels from EOFlow, backed by significant periodic penalty payments for non-compliance. The ruling reinforces core legal principles governing claim construction and cost allocation within the UPC framework.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India
The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the costs associated with an application for damages/compensation. Bruker appealed the limitation on the reimbursement of court fees related to its request to lay open books, arguing that such proceedings should not incur separate fees. The Court firmly upheld the requirement for Bruker to pay both fixed and value-based fees, confirming that compensation determination is a distinct quantum proceeding under the RoP. This ruling clarifies the financial obligations parties face when seeking damages or compensation in UPC litigation.
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.