Strategic
IP Litigation
Playbooks.
15,261 annotated judicial records across India , European UPC and the US PTAB — searchable by court, outcome, and industry sector.
Latest Decisions
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd. v.Om Prakash Nebhwani (Trading as: Mahesh Matar Namkeen)
Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., a Lucknow-based company engaged in manufacturing namkeens and snacks since 1983 under the trademark 'MAHESH' (with parrot device), sued Om Prakash Nebhwani for trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant, who is the nephew of the plaintiff's director and had prior knowledge of the mark, adopted the identical 'MAHESH' mark with parrot/peacock device for his own namkeen business in Jaipur. The defendant's defense was struck off for non-filing of written statement. The court found the plaintiff's mark to be distinctive, well-established, and a well-known trademark, and held that the defendant's use constituted slavish copying amounting to infringement and passing off.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Ms Pas Agro v.M/S Krbl Limited & Anr
Ms Pas Agro has filed a petition under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trademarks Act challenging the Commercial Court's order dismissing its application to frame a preliminary issue on the invalidity of KRBL's registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' (application no. 599833). The underlying suit CS (COMM) 78/2025 was filed by KRBL against Pas Agro. The Delhi High Court issued notice, permitted deletion of respondent no.2, and granted time for filing reply and rejoinder. The substantive question of whether a preliminary issue on trademark invalidity should be framed remains pending.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited v.Inox India Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court disposed of a miscellaneous application seeking extension of time for the trial court to decide Trademark Suit No. 3 of 2019 between Cryogas Equipment Private Limited and Inox India Limited. As a last opportunity, the Court granted an additional six months to the concerned court to decide the suit, while expressly warning that no further extension would be entertained. The underlying dispute concerns trademark rights in the cryogenic/industrial gas equipment sector.
Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited v.Alaina Healthcare Private Limited & A. Menarini India Private Limited
Mankind Consumer Products, the registered proprietor of the trademark ACNESTAR (Reg. No. 1352577 in Class 5) since 2005, sued Alaina Healthcare and A. Menarini India for using the marks ACNE SCAR/ACNE+SCAR/ACNESCAR on their acne scar serum product HEXILAK. The court found a prima facie case of deceptive similarity, noting that the dominant feature 'ACNE' was common and the suffix 'STAR' vs 'SCAR' was insufficient to distinguish the marks, especially given the identical trade channels and consumer class. The court granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff while allowing defendant no. 2 a two-month period to recall existing stock from the trade.
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.
About the Arctic Invent Case Law Database
The Arctic Invent Case Law Database is an authoritative legal intelligence repository maintained by Arctic Invent, a global intellectual property consulting firm. Designed for patent attorneys, litigators, and in-house IP counsel, the database compiles primary court decisions, registry orders, and tribunal rulings across key international jurisdictions.
Every decision indexed in our repository undergoes multi-stage editorial structuring. Our IP specialists extract factual summaries, judicial holdings (ratio decidendi), statutory sections invoked (such as Section 3(d), Section 8, and Section 64 of the Indian Patents Act, or Articles 65 and 32 of the UPC Agreement), procedural outcomes, and legal tests applied by the bench.
Comprehensive rulings from the Supreme Court of India, Delhi High Court IPD, Bombay High Court, and Controller General of Patents.
First-instance local and regional division judgments, provisional measures, and Court of Appeal precedents across EU member states.
Post-Grant Reviews (PGR) and Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) before the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
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.