Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 101–200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities (UPC-CoA-165/2026)
The UPC Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Hurtel Sp. z o.o.'s application for access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in relation to the concluded main proceedings (UPC-CoA-534/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997. The court held that the language of the access application must correspond to the language of the main proceedings, which was German. Hurtel was granted the opportunity to resubmit its application in German by October 9, 2026.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. applied to the UPC Court of Appeal for access to the case file of proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities were parties. The main proceedings had been conducted in German, and Hurtel initially filed its access request in a different language. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the access application must match the language of the main proceedings and ordered Hurtel to resubmit its request in German by October 9, 2026.
Atul Bhaleraav Patil v.State Of Gujarat & Ors.
The applicant filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No.11191037211559 of 2021 registered at Odhav Police Station, Ahmedabad, for offences under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957, arising from seizure of duplicate Honda two-wheeler accessories bearing counterfeit Honda stickers. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the application, holding that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was disclosed and that the remedies under the Copyright Act operate independently of the Trade Marks Act.
Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) v.Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors
The plaintiff, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a globally recognized HR organization with nearly 340,000 members across 180 countries, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for using the mark 'SHRM PRO' and related formative marks. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'SHRM' trademarks, and directed the domain registrar and app store platforms to take down the infringing website and mobile applications.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
This is a review application filed by the respondents seeking review of an order dated 23rd March, 2018, in a rectification proceeding. The review application was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) but stood transferred to the Calcutta High Court following the abolition of IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Court directed the matter to be listed in November 2026 and asked the advocates to resolve discrepancies in the arrangement of papers in the paper book.
M/s. Cipla Ltd. v.M/s. Embiotic Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This case involves two interlocutory applications filed by M/s. Cipla Ltd. in a pending trade mark opposition petition, seeking permission to file additional documents and to lead secondary evidence. The documents relate to various 'OMNI' formative marks including OMNICAL, OMNIGEL, OMNIM, OMNIX, and OMNICLAV. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, but the Madras High Court allowed the applications, holding that any objections could be raised at trial without causing prejudice.
Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd (represented by its Managing Director Dr. M. Saravanan) v.Rajesh Jayaraj trading as Rio Scans and Labs
The petitioner, Rio Children's Hospital Pvt Ltd, sought transfer of a pending infringement and passing off suit (O.S. No. 302 of 2022) from the Principal District Court, Madurai to the Intellectual Property Division of the Madras High Court for consolidation with its rectification petition (O.P.(TM) No.64 of 2025) concerning the rival marks 'RIO' and 'RIO SCANS AND LABS'. The court held that consolidation and transfer under Rule 14 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 read with Section 24 CPC are discretionary and not automatic merely because a rectification proceeding is pending. The application was dismissed, with the court observing that the rectification petition could proceed independently and its effect could be worked out in the civil suit in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
S. Purushottam, Sashibhushan & S. Nagraj, Trading as M/s. Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries v.ITC Limited & The Registrar of Trademarks
This case involves an application filed by the applicants, trading as M/s.Sri Raghavendra Parboiled Industries, seeking permission to mark additional documents in a trademark opposition proceeding against ITC Limited. The applicants sought to introduce documents including an invitation card, income tax returns, advertisements, and trademark prosecution records. The respondents objected on the ground of delay, as evidence and cross-examination had already been completed. The Madras High Court allowed the application, permitting the documents to be marked subject to proof, relevancy, and admissibility.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural order in a patent appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was received from the Roster Bench as it had been substantially heard by the Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16 October 2026.
Net World Sports Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Net World Sports Limited filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The respondent's counsel fairly stated that he had instructions to dispose of the petition by way of remand, given the degree of detail in the reasoning adopted in the impugned order. By consent, the petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar of Trademarks for appropriate reconsideration by a responsible officer.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses NVIDIA's request for reimbursement of court fees paid in error. NVIDIA had filed a reinstatement application and an appeal against the decision on the revocation counterclaim under the wrong case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) before re-filing under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal partially granted the reimbursement, ordering the Registry to refund 2,940 EUR in overpaid appeal fees and 460 EUR in overpaid reinstatement application fees.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and a request for reimbursement. NVIDIA had filed an appeal and a request for re-instatement under an incorrect case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) and subsequently re-filed them under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal ordered partial reimbursement of 2,940 EUR for overpaid appeal fees and full reimbursement of 460 EUR for the overpaid re-instatement application fee.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against multiple Amazon entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 4 024 777. Both parties subsequently withdrew their respective claims—the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation—and agreed that each party would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and set the overall value of the dispute at 5 Mio. EUR.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto And Another
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, sought an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB for allegedly infringing its registered marks by using 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark amounted to trademark infringement. The Court extended the previously granted interim stay until the next date of hearing, noting that settlement discussions between the parties were underway.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited And Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning trademarks originally associated with Dunlop India Limited (DIL). The petitioner, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited, argued that the chain of trademark assignments from DIL to the respondent Glorious Investments Limited is void because the assignments post-date the winding up petition against DIL, which was allowed on 31st January, 2013, with the winding up dating back to the date of filing. The petitioner further contended that DIL had admitted to being out of production at its Sahaganj and Ambattur Units, supporting non-use of the mark for over five years. The arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 1st October, 2026.
Sanjeet Prakash v.The State Of Bihar
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjeet Prakash and Abhishek Kumar, directors of Glowline Poly Plast Pvt. Ltd., in connection with Parsa Bazar P.S. Case No. 246 of 2026 registered for offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The case arose from allegations by Usha Polytubes that the petitioners' company was manufacturing and selling PVC pipes bearing the counterfeit 'Usha Gold' trademark. The Patna High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, directing that the petitioners be enlarged on bail upon arrest or surrender within eight weeks, subject to furnishing bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata v.Union of India & Ors.
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by IRCTC challenging orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directing it to pay gratuity to a contract worker who had served through three different contractors from 2002 to 2020. The court held that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but modified the order to grant IRCTC liberty to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor.
Narender Kumar v.The State
This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.
The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors
Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 20th September 2023 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Indian Patent Application No.202047054780. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and John Doe (unknown)
Ashok Leyland Limited sought an ad-interim injunction before the Madras High Court against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe entity operating the website ashokleylandevdealer.com, alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant alleged that the respondents were illegally representing themselves as affiliated with or endorsed by Ashok Leyland and soliciting dealership/franchise opportunities using identical or deceptively similar marks. The Court extended the interim injunction previously granted on 28.08.2026 until 27.10.2026 and listed the matter for further hearing.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Emboline Inc.'s application seeking to disregard certain evidence as late-filed or, alternatively, to be granted leave to file further written pleadings in the appeal proceedings. The disputed evidence consisted of Exhibit HRM 26 (a written witness statement of Prof. Marco De Carlo) and paragraphs 101–120 of AorticLab srl's Statement of response. The Court held that no further pleadings or evidence would be allowed at that stage and ordered the written procedure to be closed.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted NVIDIA's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing NVIDIA to file an out-of-time appeal and appeal brief against the Local Division Munich's decision of March 11, 2026, concerning EP 3 743 812. The respondents (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG) did not oppose the application. The court found that NVIDIA could not reasonably have known that a separate appeal was required for its conditional nullity counterclaim until the Court of Appeal's clarification order of July 16, 2026 in the Emboline v. AorticLab case.
Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Centripetal Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Keysight's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, allowing it to lodge an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's decision not to rule on its conditional counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 821 580. The Court found that Keysight could not reasonably have been expected to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal's 16 July 2026 order in Emboline v. AorticLab clarified the procedural pathway for conditional counterclaimants. The Court also rejected Centripetal's request to shorten or modify the three-month time limit for filing the Statement of response under R. 235.1 RoP.
Md. Gyas Alam @ Gyas Alam v.The State Of Bihar
The petitioner, Md. Gyas Alam, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences under the Copyright Act, the Trade Marks Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arising from the alleged manufacture and sale of counterfeit lubricant products at a godown in Nawada. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated merely because he was the brother of co-accused Md. Niyaz, the actual proprietor of the firm from whose premises the counterfeit goods were recovered. The Patna High Court, considering the nature of the accusation and the petitioner's clean antecedent, allowed the anticipatory bail application subject to conditions.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr
The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Devinder Singh
This is a civil suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Devinder Singh seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court framed six issues for trial, including whether the agreement was cancelled/terminated as alleged by the defendant and whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform its obligations. The matter was listed for recording of evidence before the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(OS) 666/2024) involving a dispute over an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022. The plaintiff seeks specific performance of the agreement, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 4,90,00,000/- paid to the defendants. The court framed six issues for trial, directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Anr
This is a commercial suit filed by Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd against Ramesh Chand and Anr seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The Defendants contended that the agreement was cancelled or terminated. The Delhi High Court framed the issues for trial and directed the parties to file witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence.
Ms Vishnu And Company Trademarks Pvt Ltd v.Ramesh Chand And Ors
This is a commercial suit (CS(OS) 665/2024) before the Delhi High Court in which the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 04.05.2022 executed between the parties, or alternatively, a refund of Rs. 7,50,00,000/- paid under the agreement along with interest. The court, with the consent of the parties, framed six issues for trial and directed the parties to file their lists of witnesses and evidence affidavits within stipulated timelines. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for recording of evidence, while a pending interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was listed separately.
Onesto Labs Private Limited v.Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Onesto Labs Private Limited, a Delhi-based personal care products company operating under the house mark 'Innovist' and brands including 'Chemist at Play', filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trademark, logo, trade dress, and domain name, as well as passing off. The suit was filed on a John Doe basis against the operator of the infringing website www.chemistatplay.com. Since the domain name Registrar (defendant no.4) agreed to transfer the impugned domain to the plaintiff and there was no contest, the court made the temporary injunction absolute and decreed the suit against defendant no.1.
Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)
This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.
Sh Shashi Bhushan & Ors v.State Of Delhi & Ors
The petitioners (10 in number, led by Mr. Shashi Bhushan) filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR No. 0896/2022 registered at P.S. Sadar Bazar under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging stocking and sale of counterfeit products bearing infringing marks. The parties entered into a compromise deed dated 27.07.2026, and the court, applying the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom, holding that the non-compoundable offences were essentially against the rights of the IP proprietor and were of a commercial/civil character.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors v.Nitin Sonkhla
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge's dismissal of their Section 34 objections against an arbitral award in favor of contractor Nitin Sonkhla. The dispute arose from a road construction contract that was rescinded after the contractor failed to complete the work within the stipulated time. The High Court set aside the District Judge's judgment on the ground that the District Judge was not designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of filing or adjudicating the objections, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the commercial dispute.
Ankur Mahajan v.VRV Sattvic Private Limited & Ors
The petitioner, Ankur Mahajan, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation/removal of the respondents' trademark registration no. 3197787 in Class 32 from the Register of Trade Marks. The court allowed the petitioner's application for leave to file additional documents and issued notice to all respondents, who accepted notice through their respective counsel. The matter was adjourned with directions for filing of replies and rejoinders, and re-notified for hearing on 15.01.2027.
Novartis AG & Anr. (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited) v.Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited & Anr.
Novartis AG and its Indian subsidiary Novartis Healthcare Private Limited sued Novosys Life Sciences Private Limited for infringement of their registered and well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS', passing off, dilution, and unfair competition, alleging that the defendant's mark 'NOVOSYS' used for pharmaceutical products was deceptively similar. The matter was resolved through settlement, with the defendant undertaking to cease use of the impugned mark, clear existing stock, and withdraw/cancel its trademark registrations and applications. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, granted three months for exhaustion of existing stock, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the defendant's registrations and treat its pending applications as withdrawn.
TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd v.State Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by TCL Monitors Pvt Ltd before the Delhi High Court concerning a trademark dispute. The petitioner's counsel suggested mediation, but the respondent's counsel informed the Court that a prior mediation attempt had failed and that the respondents had already voluntarily discontinued use of the impugned mark. The Court declined to refer the matter to mediation, permitted the parties to file short written submissions, directed summoning of the e-TCR record, and required the petitioner's Director to appear in person on the next date of hearing.
Sri Veerendra Patil Kumbri v.Sri Madiwalayya G Math
The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.01.2023. The dispute concerned Clause 7.1 of the agreement, under which the petitioners had agreed to withdraw the trade name 'SOUTHERN' from the companies, believing the respondents had registered it as a trademark, which later turned out to be untrue. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator.
M/s Harisons (India) Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Harilal and Sons and Another
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected the petitioner's application seeking expeditious disposal of its pending interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, on the ground that the injunction application could not be adjudicated while the respondents' Order VII Rule 11 application remained pending. The Allahabad High Court held that the Commercial Court had misread the High Court's earlier interim order dated 06.04.2026, which stayed only the amendment order and not the entire suit proceedings, and that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to decide an interim injunction application on its merits.
Shri Nand Kishore v.The State Of Madhya Pradesh
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the Tehsildar's order dated 26.2.2026 rejecting their mutation application and seeking direction to mutate their name as bhumiswami over agricultural land in Sardarpur, District Dhar. The State raised a preliminary objection regarding availability of alternative efficacious remedy under Section 44(1) of the MP Land Revenue Code. The High Court disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory appellate remedy, directing the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.
Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.
The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited & Anr.
Incyte Holdings Corporation and its associated entities filed a patent infringement suit against Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were offering for sale Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API through their website and third-party platforms, and had obtained a manufacturing licence and developed a generic version of the patented compound. The court, satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib until the next date of hearing.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Melody Healthcare Private Limited
Incyte Holdings Corporation and others filed a patent infringement suit against Melody Healthcare Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was offering for sale Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on third-party platforms and had obtained a manufacturing licence to commercially produce a generic version. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib that would infringe the suit patent.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a procedural directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others v.Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Thakur
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the District Judge Mandi's dismissal of objections under Section 34 against an arbitral award in a construction contract dispute. The High Court found that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction because it had not been designated as a 'commercial court' under Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 at the time of hearing the objections, as commercial courts at the district level were notified only on 13.5.2026. The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the impugned judgment and directing the District Judge to return the objections for presentation before the appropriate forum, with the limitation period being excluded.
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson and Others (EP 3 689 383)
This order from the UPC Local Division Brussels addressed procedural matters in consolidated proceedings concerning EP 3 689 383, a patent owned by the United States of America (NIH). The court dismissed the NIH's request to be reclassified as co-claimant in the infringement action brought by 2seventy bio, Inc. against Janssen and Legend Biotech defendants, while recognizing NIH as defendant in the counterclaims for revocation. The court also dismissed the defendants' R. 190 RoP applications to produce evidence from the NIH regarding laboratory notebooks, inventor disclosures, grant applications, and prior notice documentation.
Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)
This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.
Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Paris Local Division following a case management conference in a patent infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP2949070 held by KEEEX SAS. The order addresses the value of the dispute (estimated at €6,622,802,000), the prospects for amicable resolution, the main legal points to be argued at the oral hearing, and the practical arrangements for the hearing scheduled for October 6, 2026. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of patent claims relating to digital identification fingerprints versus digital signatures, the validity of the patent against prior art, and alleged infringement by the defendants.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. ETRI had filed a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms entities in December 2025, and Meta had filed a counterclaim for revocation in May 2026. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, they withdrew their respective actions and the Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Sidel Participations SAS v.OMNIA Technologies S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS challenging the Central Division Paris's rejection of a Preliminary objection. The core issue was whether the UPC has competence to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patents filed before their grant. The Court held that this is a question of admissibility rather than competence, and that the UPC has competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA for declarations of non-infringement of patents.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against several Samsung Electronics entities regarding European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court found the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art D1 (US 2006/263048 A1), and all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, resulting in the revocation of the patent in its entirety and dismissal of the infringement action.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung Electronics entities concerning European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung filed a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it lacked novelty as granted over prior art and that all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, and dismissed the infringement action with costs awarded to Samsung.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Mujeeb A.K v.State Of Kerala
This writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by Mujeeb A.K challenging an order of the 6th respondent (Jofin Lukose). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. In light of this submission, the court closed the writ petition while leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 3 471 419. Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against Meta Platforms and related entities, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_1310/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1737/2026) concerning EP 4 024 777, filed by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities. The court ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to both sides, rejecting the claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants (VeyorEx, Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech) for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor known as the 'Bendy Boom.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent after the termination of a prior licence agreement, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 471 419. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions—Huawei's infringement action and the Meta defendants' counterclaim for revocation—and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a proportional 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc. (UPC-CoA-121/2026)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected AMMS's appeal against a cost decision ordering it to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks. The court held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA for appeals against revocation decisions does not extend to separate cost proceedings, and that the Court of First Instance did not exceed its discretion in refusing to stay the cost proceedings or order payment by instalments.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned EP 4 024 777 and involved a patent infringement action by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each side, rejecting the Claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants including VeyorEx B.V., Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent through the manufacture and sale of the 'Bendy Boom' telescopic belt conveyor after termination of a prior licence agreement, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's chain of title and right to maintain the rectification application, but arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This case involves a rectification application filed before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's standing and right to maintain the rectification application, tracing the chain of title through various agreements, but the arguments could not be concluded.
K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Indotech Switchgear And Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr.
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a trademark cancellation petition filed by K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd against Indotech Switchgear and Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking cancellation/removal of trademark registration No. 4314092 in Class 09. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications and issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2027.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. v.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
Shubham Khandelwal Through Shubham Trading Company v.S.K. Trademark Through Proprietor Gaurav
This is a criminal revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in which the petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's counsel raised no objection to the condonation of delay. The court allowed the application, condoned the delay, called for the record, and listed the matter after two weeks.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited v.M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arose from a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning edible oils. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries, claimed prior use of the trademark 'Tasty Gold' since December 2000, while the appellants/defendants, M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils, adopted the mark 'Namaskar Tasty Nutts' for a blended edible oil. The Telangana High Court upheld the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants' mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among illiterate and semiliterate consumers.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the appeal by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG against the dismissal of its patent infringement claim and the appeal by Vibrantz GmbH against the partial nullity of EP 3 215 288. The court upheld the Local Division Munich's finding that Vibrantz's use of the patented metal sintering preparation in Germany was lawful under a prior use right, and therefore could not establish a threat of infringement in France, Italy, and Romania. The court also confirmed the partial revocation of the French, Italian, and Romanian parts of the patent based on lack of inventive step.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 3 841 735 held by In(k)control BV. Following a Rule 296.3 RoP order on September 3, 2026, defendant Esko filed a request for leave of appeal and extension of time, which was subsequently withdrawn after the parties reached a joint agreement on an adjusted briefing schedule. The court accepted the joint request, extending Esko's deadline for the Statement of Defence to November 2, 2026, and In(k)control's reply deadline to February 2, 2027, while acknowledging that this would exceed the one-year target for proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both appeals in a patent infringement and revocation dispute concerning EP 3 215 288, a metal sintering preparation patent. The court upheld the Local Chamber Munich's decision that the infringement action was entirely dismissed and that the patent was partially revoked in France, Italy, and Romania. The court found that the defendant's prior use rights in Germany precluded a threat of infringement, and that no concrete infringing acts or preparatory acts existed for France, Italy, and Romania.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is an order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an application by Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV for security for costs to be provided by In(k)control BV under R. 158 RoP in infringement proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 841 735. The court found that the conditions for requiring security were met given In(k)control's precarious financial position, including negative equity, assets consisting primarily of the patent in suit, and doubts about continuity. Using its discretionary power, the court set the security at €75,000, rejecting both Esko's primary request of €400,000 and In(k)control's offer of €19,000.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717, with Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd as intervenor. The order, issued following the second interim hearing of September 11, 2026, addresses case management matters including the confirmation of the oral hearing date of February 2, 2027, the admission of amended pleadings reflecting the patent's limitation before the EPO, the partial rejection of Yunex's submissions as untimely, and the allocation of oral argument time. The parallel nullity action before the Central Chamber Paris had been dismissed on June 25, 2026, and the patent's limited version was published on April 8, 2026.
DivX, LLC v.Netflix Services Germany GmbH et al.
DivX, LLC sued multiple Netflix entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Munich for indirect infringement of European Patent with Unitary Effect EP 4 213 033, directed to a video distribution system with progressive playback. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court maintained the patent in amended form based on the plaintiff's auxiliary request, found indirect infringement of claim 1, and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting obligations, and a finding of liability for damages, while ordering the defendants to bear the costs of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
ToolGen, Inc. v.Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated & Lonza Netherlands B.V.
ToolGen, Inc. initiated infringement proceedings in the UPC Local Division The Hague against Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Lonza Netherlands, alleging that the product Casgevy.13 infringes its European patent EP 4 397 760 relating to CRISPR compositions. The defendants filed two applications: a Rule 190 application seeking production of documents obtained through disclosure in parallel UK proceedings, and a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of ToolGen's claims for injunctive and corrective relief as manifestly bound to fail. The judge-rapporteur dismissed both applications, holding that the defendants could not circumvent UK disclosure restrictions via a UPC order and that the Rule 361 application was not appropriate for the fact-intensive assessment required.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI Tech GmbH, MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC sought provisional measures from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich against four MGI/BGI respondents for alleged infringement of four European patents through the marketing and sale of 'Cyclone Devices' (sequencers and flow cells). The court separated the proceedings, dismissing the application against Respondents 2-4 for lack of jurisdiction and evidence, but granted extensive provisional measures against MGI Tech GmbH, including injunctive relief, delivery-up orders, information orders, and penalty payments in respect of EP 2 422 198 B1 and EP 2 715 343 B1.
Abbott GmbH & Anr. v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Abbott GmbH & Anr., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited from using the marks COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS, which were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered CREMAFFIN marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, with the defendant agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and withdraw its trademark application. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and granted the plaintiffs a refund of court fees.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, Ericsson withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the 50% default rate, citing the exceptional procedural burden caused by parallel filings across UPC divisions.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH and others
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants and applied to withdraw the action with consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declined to issue a cost decision, set the value in dispute, and reduced the standard reimbursement rate of court fees from 50% to 40% based on exceptional circumstances.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 397 009 against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants that also covered claims against Adyen, and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and set the reimbursement rate of court fees at 40% rather than the standard 50%, resulting in a reimbursement of EUR 16,440.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the UPC Local Division Brussels following an interim conference in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. The court set the total value of the proceedings at €2.5 million (€1 million for the infringement action and €1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation). The order also addressed procedural arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, including contingencies related to BARCO's pending appeal against a prior procedural order dated 17 August 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed patent infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris Seat). Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, the Claimant withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the requested 60%, citing exceptional circumstances due to the Claimant's procedural behaviour and the Court's increased workload.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 506 479 against multiple defendants including Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with most defendants and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at EUR 3,000,000, and reduced the standard court fee reimbursement rate from 50% to 40% due to exceptional circumstances, ordering reimbursement of EUR 16,440 to the claimant.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a Procedural Order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, relating to an infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) brought by Barco NV against Yealink entities and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim conference, including the valuation of the case, recoverable costs, the timeframe for the oral hearing, and contingencies arising from Barco's pending appeal of a prior procedural order concerning auxiliary request 6.
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This is an appeal filed by UPL Mauritius Limited and another appellant before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the Respondent, with the matter adjourned to 03.12.2026.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a rectification order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) concerning a decision dated 24 August 2026 in proceedings between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and HMD Global Oy regarding EP 2 609 590. The Court identified an obvious slip in item G of the operative part, which had stated the Claimant's request rather than the Court's actual decision on enforcement security. Both parties agreed to the proposed rectification, and the Defendant's additional suggestion to explicitly include 'definitive removal from the distribution channels' in the recall and destruction provision was also consented to by the Claimant.