Strategic
IP Litigation
Playbooks.
14,800 annotated judicial records across India , European UPC and the US PTAB — searchable by court, outcome, and industry sector.
Latest Decisions
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. filed an intra-court appeal (LPA) challenging the Single Judge's order that had set aside the Registrar's rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication of the mark under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench held that since the application had not reached the stage of acceptance, advertisement under Section 20 could not be directed, and the authorities under the statute were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh.
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
UPL Mauritius Limited and another have filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 03.12.2026. The matter is at the initial stage of hearing.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation and removal of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 in Class 30 registered in the name of Pradeep Kumar K.R. Before the matter could be heard on merits, both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026. The Madras High Court recorded the settlement and disposed of the petition, with the compromise memo forming part of the order, and passed no order as to costs.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of electrical and lighting products marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', sued an individual trader (Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the marks 'SURYA CAB' and other Surya-formative marks for electric wires and cables. The plaintiff claimed infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrights, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The Commercial Court at Delhi decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of confusingly similar marks amounted to infringement and passing off, and granted permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15 lakhs, and delivery-up of all infringing goods and materials.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. filed a commercial suit and a connected rectification petition against Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. and others concerning the trademark 'SOMI-MB' (Application No. 5982177 in Class 5). The parties settled their disputes through mediation, executing a Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of Alkem by consent and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and expunge the impugned mark within four weeks. The plaintiff waived its claims for damages and costs, and was granted a full refund of court fee under the amended Court Fees Act.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
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.