Strategic
IP Litigation
Playbooks.
17,896 annotated judicial records across India , European UPC and the US PTAB — searchable by court, outcome, and industry sector.
Latest Decisions
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
AstraZeneca AB and another plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The defendant agreed to withdraw its counter-claim of invalidity and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour. The court disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement and granted refund of court fees to the plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
AstraZeneca AB sued USV Private Limited for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the settlement, USV agreed to withdraw its invalidity counterclaim and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 157/2020. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, making the Settlement Agreement part of the decree.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
Asustek Computer Inc filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian patents IN'056 and IN'246, while Nokia had filed a separate infringement suit (CS(COMM) 643/2025) against Asustek alleging infringement of patents IN'507 and IN'105. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Delhi High Court allowed Asustek to withdraw the revocation petitions and disposed of them with liberty to reinstitute proceedings in accordance with law if so required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/cancellation of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' registered in Class 03 in favour of Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, which the court found lawful. Pursuant to the settlement, the court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark from the Register to maintain its purity.
3 jurisdictions.
One playbook engine.
Precedent-setting cases.
Cases that shaped IP jurisprudence across jurisdictions.
Myokardia Inc. v.Lucius Pharmaceutical
Myokardia Inc. filed a suit against Lucius Pharmaceutical alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. 392872, which covers novel pyrimidinedione compounds used to treat serious cardiovascular diseases like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The Plaintiffs argued that the defendants' generic product infringed upon their patented technology and caused irreparable harm. Based on a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling generic Mavacamten until further hearing.
Crystal Crop Protection Limited v.Safex Chemicals India Limited
Crystal Crop Protection Limited filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Safex Chemicals India Limited for infringing its registered patent no. 417213, which covers a novel weedicidal formulation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product 'RACER' had an identical composition to the patented invention. However, while considering the interim injunction application, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because the element of 'dyeing agent or pigment' was not proven to be non-essential in the patent claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the injunction request.
Galatea Ltd v.Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation
Galatea Ltd filed a suit alleging infringement of its Patent No. 271425 against Diyora And Bhanderi Corporation. Concurrently, the defendants filed a counter claim seeking the revocation of this patent. The Gujarat High Court examined both the infringement claims and the validity challenges raised by the defendants. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove infringement, and consequently, rejected the counter claim for revocation, affirming the novelty and inventive step of the suit patent.
Browse the spectrum.
Every category indexed and outcome-tagged — from utility patents to design infringement and trademark passing-off.
Your research workflow.
From finding the right cases to building your litigation strategy — three steps.
Search & Filter
Find cases by court, IP type, outcome, or keyword. Our index covers all major IP tribunals across every loaded jurisdiction.
Read the Playbook
Each case is annotated with ratio decidendi, key tests applied, and strategic implications for practitioners.
Apply Insights
Analyze precedent, explore court outcomes, and build jurisdiction-specific litigation strategies.
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.