Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 201–300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a clarification order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, concerning European Patent EP 2 380 167. The court rectified an obvious slip in the operative part of its decision dated 24 August 2026, clarifying the provision of security required for enforcement of the orders. The Defendant suggested the clarification, and the Claimant consented to it.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the UPC Local Division The Hague, alleging infringement of European Patent EP4108769 concerning methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration. Moderna filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and territories, a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC states, and a confidentiality application. The Court deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, dismissed the Rule 361 application, and provisionally granted the confidentiality application while inviting CureVac to respond.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et al.
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in The Hague addresses an evidentiary dispute in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning EP2590626 B1. The panel revoked an earlier order by the judge-rapporteur that had rejected GSK's New ATEM reports (Cryo-TEM data with stained/dyed RNA of the accused products) as late-filed evidence. The panel found that during the oral hearing, the location of mRNA within particles and the nature of the aqueous core became central to the infringement discussion, making the previously rejected evidence material to the case.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request under Rule 361 RoP filed by Alpinestars and others seeking to declare Dainese's appeal inadmissible on the ground that court fees were paid after the expiry of the appeal deadline. The Court held that the Statement of appeal was lodged within the two-month time limit and that the bank transfer order for the court fees was given within the 14-day period following the Registry's invitation, rendering both the appeal and the payment timely. The requests for interim awards of costs were also rejected as the order was not final.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
An Original Petition was filed by M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. before the Madras High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 (Class 30) granted in the name of the first respondent. The matter was listed under the caption 'memo of compromise,' and both parties submitted that they had arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court recorded the joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026 and disposed of the petition, with 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 steel, lighting, and electrical goods marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', filed a commercial suit against Maddi Ramiah Kutati (trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the deceptively similar mark 'SURYA CAB' for electrical wires and cables. The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright, engaged in passing off, and was not an innocent user. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest, delivery-up of infringing goods and materials, and costs of the suit.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. et al.
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple defendants, including Transsion, Tecno, Infinix, and others, concerning European patent EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with Transsion and applied to withdraw the infringement action. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, declined to issue a cost order, and ordered reimbursement of 35% of the court fees (12,950 EUR) based on the exceptional circumstances of the case.
BYD Company Ltd & Others v.BMS Innovations, LLC
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a Declaration of Non-Infringement (DNI) action filed by BYD entities against BMS Innovations, LLC, the proprietor of European Patent EP2937706. BMSI sought to have BYD's DNI action dismissed as inadmissible under Rules 61(1), 361, and 362 RoP, arguing that BYD failed to provide full particulars of the acts in question before filing. The Court rejected BMSI's requests in their entirety, finding that BYD's pre-filing letter of 18 May 2026 contained sufficient information and that the DNI action was not manifestly inadmissible or lacking foundation in law.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd. & Others
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 3 960 072 B1 relating to compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, sought provisional measures from the UPC Milan Local Division against five related entities (Shenzhen SiSensing, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology, Sibio PTE, and Shanghai International Holding) for their planned commercialization of the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system. The Court granted the provisional injunction, prohibiting the respondents from infringing the patent in the relevant Contracting Member States, ordered disclosure of distribution channels, imposed capped penalty payments for non-compliance, and awarded Abbott an interim cost award of 120,000 EUR.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence under Rule 197.3 RoP in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 4 285 308 B8 ('Securely Registering a Sequence of Transactions'). The applicant fiskaly GmbH sought evidence preservation against SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. The court largely upheld the original April 27, 2026 order, finding plausible grounds for suspected infringement, and granted a supplementary auxiliary request requiring the expert to transport secured materials to the court's office if a main action is filed.
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and a connected commercial suit after the parties settled their disputes through mediation. A Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026 was placed on record, pursuant to which the commercial suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the rectification petition was allowed by mutual consent. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and expunge the impugned trademark 'SOMI-MB' (application No. 5982177 in Class 5), and the plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire court fee.
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.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.
The defendants, four Amazon Web Services entities belonging to the same corporate group, applied for alignment of deadlines for filing their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation, since the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates. The claimant agreed to alignment but proposed 29 October 2026 as the common deadline, while the defendants requested 11 November 2026. The judge-rapporteur aligned all deadlines to run from 29 July 2026, the earliest date of service, ordering all defendants to file their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation by 29 October 2026.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc. and American Wave Machines, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. WhiteWater had no objections to the request, while American Wave opposed it and sought protective measures.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This order concerns the release of a cost security deposit (Prozesskostensicherheit) in proceedings before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide €150,000 in cost security for the appeal proceedings. After the defendant fully paid the cost assessment amount of €38,230.10 owed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed receipt, the defendant applied for release of the security deposit, to which the plaintiff consented.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, which had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Division Bench held that the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case, as the oral agreement was evident from the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance executed between them. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from altering the suit property, obstructing the common passage, or creating third-party interests.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This case before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Rule 296(3) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the effect of resuming previously stayed proceedings on procedural time limits. The parties had jointly requested a stay for amicable settlement negotiations, which ultimately failed. The court ruled that procedural periods resume from the date of the resumption order, taking into account the periods that had already elapsed prior to the stay, rather than beginning to run entirely afresh.
Amycel, LLC v.[Appellant] (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellant's principal request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation facilities (English to Polish) during an oral hearing in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350. The appellant, a natural person and the defendant in the first instance proceedings, argued that his limited command of English justified Court-arranged interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA. The Court held that the conditions for ordering interpretation were not met, as the appellant was duly represented by a professional representative and had not shown that his personal attendance rendered Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The Court granted the alternative request, permitting the appellant to engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed the interpretation of Rule 296.3 RoP regarding how procedural time limits resume after a stay of proceedings is lifted. The parties had jointly requested a stay for settlement negotiations, which was granted from 29 May 2026 to 1 September 2026. When negotiations failed, the defendants argued that time limits should start completely fresh, while the plaintiff argued they should resume accounting for time already elapsed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that R. 296.3 RoP provides for a suspension (not interruption) of time limits, meaning they resume from the date the stay ends while accounting for the time already elapsed before the suspension.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection under Rule 192 RoP. Essity, proprietor of European patent EP 3 289 139 relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers, had obtained an ex parte order from the Hague Local Division allowing evidence preservation against WEPA, including the questioning of WEPA's personnel. The Court of Appeal partially upheld WEPA's appeal, ruling that Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant's personnel on technical details, while rejecting WEPA's prior use right defense and compensation claim.
M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, directed at the Disney+ streaming service. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, challenging novelty and inventive step. The court found the patent valid as amended in its auxiliary requests and partially infringed, granting injunctive relief, information and disclosure orders, and damages, while dismissing other aspects of the infringement action.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This is an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued alongside a main decision on the same day in proceedings involving InterDigital CE Patent Holdings as claimant and multiple Walt Disney Company entities as defendants regarding European Patent EP 2 080 349. The court classified certain information from the main decision as confidential and restricted access to the claimant's outside counsels and two named representatives.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant, Yangtze Memory Technologies, sought to disregard Defendants' new arguments introduced for the first time in their Rejoinder regarding an alleged prior use right based on the Z01M die and the assertion that the 'internal mode' is deactivated in commercially sold devices comprising the Y2BM die. The court deferred the decision on whether to reject these arguments as belated until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to file a further written pleading by 17 September 2026 to respond to the new arguments as a precautionary measure.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant Iagon provide security for costs of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that the defendants had not sufficiently credibly demonstrated that Iagon's financial position or the enforceability of a cost order in the UAE justified ordering security for costs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr.
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against Zydus Healthcare Limited and another defendant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Ashok Kumar Bansal Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a matter filed by Ashok Kumar Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries, against the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and others. An adjournment slip was circulated on behalf of the Petitioner with no objection from the Respondents. The Court granted the adjournment and listed the matter for 04.02.2027.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2026) filed by Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company against the Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications and others. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, listed the matter for further hearing on 03.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr
This case concerns the execution of a decree of permanent injunction passed in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and others restraining the Judgment Debtors from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 27.07.2026, under which the Judgment Debtors agreed to pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to the Decree Holders. The Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, disposed of the execution petition in terms of the MoU, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited in court, and directed the Judgment Debtors to pay the remaining Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. v.R. Venkatachalam & Anr.
This order pertains to an execution petition arising from a trademark infringement suit (CS(COMM) 346/2018) where Aktiebolaget Volvo obtained a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'PENTA'. The parties amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.07.2026. The Court recorded the settlement, directed release of Rs. 32,00,000/- already deposited by the Judgment Debtors, and directed payment of an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- within four months.
KRBL Limited v.Sri Krishna Agencies & Others
KRBL Limited, the proprietor of the well-known registered trademark 'INDIA GATE' for rice and food products (registered since 1993 under Class 30), filed a suit against Sri Krishna Agencies and its partners for infringement and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' adoption and use of the trademark 'MADRAS GATE' for identical goods was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'INDIA GATE' mark. Since the defendants failed to appear despite service, the court proceeded ex parte and granted a permanent injunction, delivery up, and awarded compensatory and punitive damages of Rs. 1.00 lakh along with costs.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd.
This is an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, directed at a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The plaintiff Aesculap AG alleged direct and indirect infringement by three Shanghai-based defendants. The court found Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediary providing services related to the infringing products and issued injunctive relief and information orders against it, while dismissing the claims against the other defendants.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Petitioner, a franchisee of Respondent No. 1 since 2022, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 relating to a franchise outlet at Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents supplied defective equipment, restricted sales, suspended the outlet from its e-commerce platform, and failed to ensure adequate supply of requisite material. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and listed the matter for further proceedings on 30.09.2026.
Kitty Industries Private Limited v.Kumar Audyogik Vikas Private Limited
This is an interim order in a commercial suit concerning alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'KITTY'. The defendant, who claims to hold a registered copyright in 'KITTI' and a registered trademark in 'KITTIKA', raised objections including that the plaintiff does not manufacture noodles and that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that cause of action arose within Delhi because the defendant's product was ordered online. The defendant was granted leave to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint.
Nobel Hygiene Limited v.Corona Remedies Limited
This appeal challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-02), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS (COMM.) 443/2026, restraining Nobel Hygiene Limited from using the trademark 'B-FIT/B-Fit' in relation to pharmaceuticals and related goods claimed by Corona Remedies Limited. The appellant contended that the injunction was granted arbitrarily without being heard, despite evidence of its long-standing use of the 'B-FIT' mark since 01.04.2014. The Delhi High Court suspended the impugned order, directed the appellant to file its reply to the injunction application within one week, and remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh hearing.
Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This is an intra-court appeal before the Delhi High Court arising from a trade mark proceeding. The appellant, Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot, challenged the appointment of the Hearing Officer who heard his trade mark application, contending that the officer was not duly appointed as required under Section 3(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Court allowed the condonation of approximately 206 days' delay by Respondent No. 1 in filing an affidavit of compliance, took the affidavit on record, and adjourned the matter to 15 December 2026 for further hearing.
Zee Learn Limited v.Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Zee Learn Limited filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust for continued use of its registered trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and proprietary MLZS Program after termination of their licensing agreements. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the termination and granted partial relief, restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks and proprietary programme and directing disclosure of financial records. However, the Court rejected prayers for revival of the contractual relationship, a bank guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, and appointment of a Court Receiver.
KRBL Limited v.LT Foods Limited & Anr.
KRBL Limited filed six connected petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking removal/cancellation of trademark registrations held by LT Foods Limited. The impugned marks included 'WORLD'S 1ST BIRYANI DAY', 'WORLD BIRYANI DAY', and 'WORLD'S BIRYANI DAY' registered in Classes 35 and 41. The Court allowed the exemption applications and issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 23.09.2026.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Fujifilm Corporation's application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the Court of Appeal's earlier decision of 2 June 2026, which had set aside the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of the defence of private prior use and dismissed the infringement action concerning EP 3 351 174. Fujifilm also requested that the application for rehearing be granted suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for suspensive effect, holding that Fujifilm had failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular prejudice justifying a departure from the general rule that applications for rehearing do not have suspensive effect.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Ronit Kumar Trading As M/S Pliza Gems & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dealt with two interlocutory applications in a commercial suit. Defendant No.6 sought condonation of a 72-day delay in filing its written statement, while the plaintiff sought leave to bring on record Legal Proceeding Certificates pertaining to its trademarks. The Court granted the plaintiff time to file a reply to the condonation application and issued notice on the plaintiff's application, with both matters re-notified before the Joint Registrar on 11 September 2026.
Awl Agri Business Limited & Anr v.Union Of India & Ors
AWL Agri Business Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 17.07.2026 and an accompanying letter issued by food safety authorities, which effectively treated its product 'Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil' as a 'non-compliant product' under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 and the Labelling Regulations, 2020. The petitioner contended that enforcement actions, including stoppage of sale orders in Jharkhand, were taken without following the procedure under the FSS Act or affording an effective hearing. The court addressed the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that since the impugned communications were issued by authorities situated in Delhi, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
State v.Sumit Verma
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 191/2019 registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, based on a complaint by Sh. Suresh Kaushik, an employee of MS Protect IP Solutions LLP, alleging that a raid at the house of accused Sumit Verma revealed a Dell computer, pen-drive, and bar code printer containing counterfeit MRP stickers of HAL and TMC companies, leading to charges under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, who was the most material witness, turned hostile and failed to identify the accused, causing the prosecution's case to collapse. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kind Patches Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a commercial suit against Kind Patches Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from using the trademarks/trade name 'KIND PATCHES'/'KINDPATCHES PRIVATE LIMITED' or any marks identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered 'KIND'/'MANKIND' trademarks and KIND formative marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and amicably settled their disputes by executing a Settlement Agreement dated 24.08.2026. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, with the Defendant agreeing to withdraw its trademark applications, and the Plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd. v.Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Frimline Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its patent No. IN'547960. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2026, while Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit acknowledging the patent's validity and undertaking not to use the product under the mark PALMOVA or any identical composition. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement and the undertaking, while preserving Defendant No. 2's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and Ors
Natco Pharma Limited filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 to the extent of claim 12 against FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and others. The matter was received on transfer from another court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition as the inter se disputes between the parties had been amicably settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 31.03.2026. The petition along with pending applications was disposed of as withdrawn.
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 298645 against Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr. The respondent's counsel pointed out technical errors in the petition, including the name of Respondent No. 1. Confronted with these errors, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty in accordance with law.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
State v.Rahul Arora
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 645/2021 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi, alleging that accused Rahul Arora and Vikas Yadav were dealing in counterfeit products bearing falsified marks of M/s Luk Products and Schaeffler KG, in violation of Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, Sh. Ajit Kumar (employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd.), turned hostile during trial and failed to identify the accused persons, and the case property was destroyed in a fire near PS Kashmere Gate on 31.05.2026. The Delhi District Court acquitted both accused persons, holding that the prosecution's foundational pillars had collapsed and that no admissible evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, and WARMCOOK
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Korean company HUROM relating to a juice extraction module for a slow juicer. HUROM had sued NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK (who market competing 'Kuvings' brand juicers) for patent infringement before the Paris Local Division, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal dismissed HUROM's appeal against the partial revocation of the patent and against the dismissal of its infringement claims, and also dismissed the defendants' cross-appeal in part as inadmissible and in part as unfounded.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited
This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
This appeal concerned an order by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application for production of evidence in infringement proceedings relating to EP 2 791 402, a patent concerning UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error of law, manifest error of assessment, or failure to apply the requirements of R. 190 RoP, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. and Others
Aesculap AG brought an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against three defendants for direct and indirect infringement of European patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following the oral hearing on 17 June 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement, which they jointly requested the court to confirm under Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of its details, and confirmed that each party bears its own costs, while the proceedings continue against defendant 2.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. v.The Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025, alleging ineligible and irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 2.37 crores with total interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 crores. The petitioners contended that the defaulting supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B should be held liable, not the purchasing dealer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023). The Court quashed the Order in Original and the recovery notice, directed reconsideration of the matter in light of the cited precedents, and required the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as a condition for remand.
Mr Vinod Kapur v.The State Of Karnataka
The petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kapur, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 5/2022 registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 193, 463, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC, arising from a dispute over a Will dated 09.09.2005 executed by the petitioner's father. During the pendency of the petition, the parties—siblings—reached a comprehensive settlement before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in Company Petition No. 43/BB/2021, which was disposed of as settled on 21.04.2026. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, holding that continuation would be futile given the settlement.
SprintRay Inc. v.Beklagter zu 1.) und Beklagter zu 2.) (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
This is an order from the Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected the main request to change the language and the subsidiary requests to file submissions and conduct hearings in English, but granted the further subsidiary request allowing the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost.
SprintRay Inc. v.[Defendants] (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris concerns a request by the defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure in two related cases involving patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the primary request to change the language to English, as well as the alternative requests to file submissions in English and conduct hearings in English, while granting the further alternative request to allow the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost. The court also granted leave to appeal.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
This is a Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division Mannheim case concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1, in which iCAT Corporation (the Claimant) brought an action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH (the Defendants). The Defendants filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of recoverable damages to five years prior to the date the action was brought. The Court, presided over by judge-rapporteur Thomas Adocker, dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible because it did not concern the Court's jurisdiction, competence, or the language of the proceedings as required by Rule 19.1 RoP.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Section Munich) addressed preliminary issues in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The court ruled that claimant SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), making its reduced court fee payment adequate. The court provisionally set the value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected SYPOX's request to lower the ceiling for recoverable costs, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in The Hague allowed the withdrawal of three parallel infringement actions (UPC-CFI-1568/2025, UPC-CFI-1791/2025, and UPC-CFI-1793/2025) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities, after Ericsson informed the Court it had reached a settlement with all defendants. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees paid, reduced from the standard 50% due to the Claimant's procedural conduct in filing several parallel proceedings across different UPC divisions.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This case concerned an infringement action filed by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, with Vivo having filed a counterclaim for revocation of EP3407524. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied to withdraw their respective claims. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and noted that no cost decision or court fees reimbursement application was sought.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted Cilag GmbH International's request for interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-operated surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The court found that the respondents' distribution of the 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero' products infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court ordered cessation of infringing activities in Germany, imposed penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, and required the respondents to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
This decision of the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerns the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-191/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC-CFI-617/2025 between Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation as claimants and multiple Moderna entities as defendants, regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to exceptional circumstances.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. infringed European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1, owned by Huwais IP Holding LLC and exclusively licensed to Versah LLC. The patent concerns a rotary osteotome (dental tool) with an enhanced flute profile featuring continuously negative rake angles. The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting orders, recall orders, and a finding of liability for damages.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
This case before the Local Division of The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025) regarding European Patent EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their claims after reaching a settlement, and the court allowed the withdrawal and declared both proceedings closed. However, the court dismissed the parties' requests for reimbursement of court fees, holding that under the amended Rule 370.9(e) RoP applicable to requests filed in 2026, reimbursement is only available before closure of the written phase, and these proceedings had already entered the interim phase.
Ramesh Chand v.T.T.Industries
This is a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 465/2018) before the Delhi High Court where the defendant, T.T.Industries, filed I.A. 5608/2026 seeking permission under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to place additional documents on record. The defendant sought to introduce an abstract from the Trade Marks Journal recognizing its 'TT' trademark as a 'well-known' mark, along with a certified copy of a 2004 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff objected on the ground of delay, noting that proceedings had been pending since 2002 and the matter was at the stage of defendant's witness examination, and sought time to cite legal precedents. The court re-notified the matter for further consideration before the Joint Registrar and the court on future dates.
Kunal Chintamani Kelkar v.Kanika Sood & Anr.
The Petitioner, a professional photographer and equal designated partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with Respondent No.1, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking urgent interim measures of protection. The disputes concerned alleged unauthorized use of the brand 'The Autofocus' (conceived by the Petitioner), control over digital assets and social media accounts, denial of access to the LLP's premises, and unilateral transfer of approximately Rs.53.26 lakhs from the LLP's bank account to Respondent No.1's personal account. The Delhi High Court, upon prima facie review of the LLP Agreement, found that while Clause 13 permitted independent business activity subject to prior intimation, Clause 14 expressly prohibited a designated partner from undertaking any business directly competing with the LLP's objectives. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and granted limited interim relief restraining Respondent No.1 from transferring or alienating the LLP's assets, digital data, or retaining exclusive control over the LLP's digital accounts.
M/S RPCI Private Limited And Another v.Petals IVF And Women Care Centre LLP And Another
This arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by M/S RPCI Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an LLP agreement with Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP. The applicant claimed Rs. 1,63,07,000/- along with 18% interest, while the opposite party had filed a suit before the Delhi High Court under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Allahabad High Court, applying the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer' from Vidya Drolia, held that an arbitration clause existed between the parties and appointed Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal as the sole arbitrator.
State v.Parvinder Singh
The State prosecuted Parvinder Singh for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging that on 12.05.2016 he was found in possession of counterfeit products bearing the falsified trademark of M/s Harish Industrial Corporation. The prosecution's case collapsed because the case property was destroyed in a fire at the malkhana of PS Kashmere Gate, making it impossible to establish the identity of the seized goods. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Rakesh Kohli
The State prosecuted Rakesh Kohli, Bhaga Ram, Vipin Kumar, and Deepak Kumar under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly manufacturing, stocking, and selling counterfeit automobile parts bearing the registered trademarks of Bajaj Auto Company. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, Sh. Jitender Kumar, and an expert witness, Ratan Pal Singh. The Court acquitted all four accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of its opposition (bearing No.1179106) to a trademark application filed by respondent No.2, which had allegedly been allowed while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No.2 accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer that the opposition be considered before the Registrar decided on registration. The Delhi High Court set aside the registration of respondent No.2's trademark (registration No.5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed an infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
This order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request to stay proceedings relating to Ericsson's applications for re-establishment of rights and costs. The Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of AsusTek's appeal against an earlier decision confirming that AsusTek must reimburse Ericsson EUR 150,000 in costs, finding that deciding the re-establishment and costs applications while the appeal was pending risked inconsistent outcomes and was contrary to procedural economy.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon addressed Asustek Computer Inc's application for a confidentiality order regarding information it was required to provide to Ericsson following a 6 May 2026 decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim. The Court dismissed the application, finding it was filed too late and that AsusTek had not justified why it did not raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings. The Court further held that even if admissible, the request to limit the purposes for which Ericsson could use the information fell under substantive law rather than the confidentiality regime.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg found HMD Global Oy infringed European Patent EP 2 380 167 (relating to upmixing a downmix audio signal) by manufacturing and marketing devices using Android OS version 9 or later. The court rejected HMD's FRAND defence, holding that while implementers may sometimes demand bilateral licences instead of pool licences, HMD's insistence on bilateral licensing indicated unwillingness to take a licence. The court upheld the patent as granted, rejected HMD's revocation counterclaim, and granted an injunction, recall/destruction orders, information orders, and an interim damages award of EUR 219,000.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court found that HMD Global Oy infringed European Patent EP 2 609 590 (an AAC standard-essential patent) by manufacturing and selling Android devices. The court rejected HMD's FRAND defence, holding that its insistence on bilateral licensing rather than accepting the Via AAC pool licence indicated unwillingness to take a licence. The patent was upheld in amended form, and the court granted an injunction, recall and destruction orders, information orders, and an interim damages award of EUR 219,000.
Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited v.Demifine Fashion Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner, Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the registration of the trademark 'DEMIFINE' (Registration No. 6264164 in Class 14) held by the respondents. The court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking summoning of the complete record of the impugned trademark from the Registrar of Trade Marks. Notice was issued to the respondents, with timelines set for filing replies and rejoinders.
Chittepu Lakshmi Reddy v.Sri Sitarama Educational Society
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a direction to the trial court (VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa) for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.46/2021, a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction pending for over five years. The petitioners relied on Judicial Notification No.3/SO/2016 prescribing a 24-month disposal timeline for certain categories of cases. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, declined to fix a rigid time-bound schedule and instead directed the trial court to endeavour for early disposal based on the seniority of pending cases.
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v.John Does & Ors
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd filed a commercial suit against John Does and others for infringement of its trademarks and passing off, alleging that unknown persons were fraudulently representing themselves as employees or agents of HCL through deceptive emails, calls, and messages to dupe the public. The Delhi High Court allowed the impleading of proposed Defendant No. 24 based on KYC details furnished by Defendant No. 18/SBI, permitted amendment of the plaint, and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 20 to 24 from using HCL's trademarks.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Manish Jain & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned trademark 'BIGFLU'. The court disposed of two interlocutory applications—one for exemption and another seeking leave to file additional documents—and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 23rd November 2026 for further proceedings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr.
This is an interlocutory order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 921/2026) filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation, leave to file additional documents, and an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. The court granted the exemption and leave applications, directed registration of the plaint, issued summons, and issued notice on the stay application with directions for filing reply and rejoinder.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Vadodara v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the common order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D-Bench Ahmedabad, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013. The Revenue raised multiple substantial questions of law regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IE, including issues relating to the authenticity of documents for purchase of plant and machinery, splitting/reconstruction of existing business, rejection of books of accounts, and apportionment of various expenses. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the tax appeals, relying on its earlier decision of even date in Tax Appeal Nos. 183 and 184 of 2020 for the same assessee covering Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, where identical issues had been dismissed.
Geekay Enterprises v.Ganesh Builders & Ors.
Geekay Enterprises (Plaintiff) filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third-party rights or undertaking construction on a suit property in Village Nahur, Mumbai, in connection with a redevelopment scheme. The Plaintiff claimed rights to balance FSI under an Agreement dated 28 October 1997, after M/s. Ganesh Builders had constructed 'Samata Apartments' on part of the property. The Bombay High Court rejected the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that the suit was not filed with necessary alacrity given an 11-year delay, and that the Plaintiff could be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Ors.
The petitioner, Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal, cancellation, or expungement of the impugned trademark registration bearing No. 1320709 in Class 09. The matter was received on transfer from the Co-ordinate IPD Bench as connected matters were pending before the court. The court allowed the application for summoning electronic records from the Registrar of Trademarks, granted exemption subject to just exceptions, and issued notice to the respondents with directions to file reply within 30 days.