Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 301–400 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v.The Asst. Commissioner (CT), VMU-1
M/s. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS) challenged assessment orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (CT) demanding VAT of Rs.52,39,44,119/- on a service turnover of Rs.11,50,52,48,700/- for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13, on transactions involving custom-made/customized software development and issuance of Digital Signature Certificates. TCS contended that these were pure service transactions on which Service Tax had already been paid under the Finance Act, 1994, and that no VAT was leviable. The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that the transactions did not constitute a 'sale' of goods and therefore could not attract VAT under the TGVAT Act, 2005, and set aside the impugned assessment orders.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 16.05.2019 that allowed M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim's claim for deduction under Section 80IE for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Gujarat High Court examined multiple substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of plant and machinery purchases, whether the assessee firm was constituted by reconstruction of an existing business, and the apportionment of selling, distribution, and R&D expenses. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and dismissed both appeals.
Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India v.Registrar Of Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a writ petition filed by Hahnemann Scientific Laboratory India against the Registrar of Trademarks. The matter could not be taken up on the scheduled date because the Supreme Court had directed the presiding judge to hear a certain batch of matters on a day-to-day basis. The court re-notified the matter for hearing on 18th December 2026.
VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.
VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.
Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr
The Delhi High Court disposed of interlocutory applications in a rectification petition filed by Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr against The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr. The Court allowed the exemption application and condoned a one-day delay in re-filing the rectification petition. Notice was issued to the Respondents in the main petition seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 under Class 05, returnable on 08.12.2026.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited
This is an ex-parte judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant issued groundless threats through legal notices and letters regarding the plaintiff's trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in relation to supari, pan masala, gutkha, and related goods. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the threats illegal and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al. (Pfizer and BioNTech entities)
This is a case management order from the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively PBNT) concerning European Patent EP2590626, which relates to Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine products. The order addresses procedural matters arising after the interim conference, including the admission of late-filed exhibits, clarification of the scope of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests to be relied upon at the upcoming oral hearing, and the rejection of certain unsolicited submissions.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's appeal as inadmissible because its Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1 RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's belated application for re-establishment of rights was also rejected as inadmissible.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that an appeal filed without the required electronic signature under Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure is not a valid filing, and a subsequently signed appeal submitted after the two-month deadline under Rule 224.1 cannot cure the defect. Windhager's appeal against the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 was therefore rejected as inadmissible, along with its belated applications for restoration of rights and additional filing time.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The Japanese plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., requested simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for the oral hearing and permission for Japanese representatives to participate via video conference. The court allowed the plaintiff to hire interpreters at its own cost using the existing courtroom equipment, but declined to order court-funded interpretation, finding that the plaintiff was not disproportionately burdened by the German language of proceedings.
Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures related to European patent EP 3 689 198, owned by SharkNinja. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance decision that had dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures regarding EP 3 689 198, finding that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed by SEB's Cookeo Infinity cooking devices. The court ordered SEB to cease infringing activities in France and Germany, imposed penalty payments for non-compliance, and required SEB to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
This order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the release of an expert's detailed description (ausführliche Beschreibung) prepared during an inspection and preservation of evidence proceeding under Articles 58 and 60 of the UPCA, and the protection of confidential information. The applicant Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, sought disclosure of the detailed description, while respondent SYPOX GmbH sought extensive redactions. The court ordered partial redaction of the detailed description, restricted disclosure to specific named natural persons on Topsoe's side, and rejected SYPOX's request for an Attorney-Eyes-Only restriction.
Rajat Gupta v.The State NCT Of Delhi
Rajat Gupta filed an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi High Court in connection with FIR No. 109/2026 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to manufacturing and sale of counterfeit automobile spare parts bearing trademarks of reputed companies. The State opposed bail, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary as the applicant was part of an organized counterfeit syndicate. The Court observed that the only incriminating material against the applicant was the disclosure statement of his brother Harshit (who had already been granted bail) and directed the applicant to join investigation, with no further precipitative steps to be taken till the next date of hearing.
Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v.Oberoi Realty Limited and Ors.
This interim application was filed by Defendant No.1, Oberoi Realty Limited, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The underlying suit was filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and flat purchasers against the developer and municipal authorities, seeking declarations regarding their undivided share in land and FSI, injunctions against ongoing construction, and conveyance of their share. The Bombay High Court rejected the application, holding that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of the alleged wrong, and the prayer for interim relief was not a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.
Activision Publishing Inc v.Oao Info India Pvt Ltd
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
This is a patent infringement suit filed by Mold-Tek Packaging Limited against Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court, concerning alleged infringement of suit patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724. The Defendant has raised a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patents and alleged suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The court, with the consent of the parties, settled the issues for trial and directed the filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 30.09.2026.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 645 903. The applicant, Valeo Electrification, filed a request under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The respondent, SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, challenged the request, arguing certain information was publicly known. The court found the request admissible and substantively justified, establishing a confidentiality club limited to four named individuals from the respondent's side.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks Government of India Trademarks Registry
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing on 22 September 2026, with no substantive ruling or detailed reasoning provided in the order.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.
This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.
Smt Anita Kharbanda Trading As Prem Di Hatti v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court dealing with two connected trademark matters. The parties jointly submitted that they were at an advanced stage of settlement, and the court listed the matter for the next date. No substantive ruling was made on the merits of the trademark dispute.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to digital audio signal decoding, sued HMD Global Oy before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement, alleging that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets implementing the USAC standard infringed the patent. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, which it made conditional upon a finding of infringement. The Court examined infringement first and concluded that Orange failed to prove infringement because the USAC decoder's transition mechanism relies on the FAC (Forward Aliasing Cancellation) tool, which transmits additional corrective information inconsistent with the patent's teaching of avoiding such additional data transmission.
LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan issued a final decision in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1, owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH, relating to a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court held that the plaintiff LS9 GmbH, a legal person whose business purpose was seminars and publications, had standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, and that the action was not an abuse of process despite allegations of being a shell company. The court found the subject matter differed from a parallel revocation counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division, and ultimately dismissed the revocation action insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of the defendant's auxiliary request 1.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of certain claims through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals, partially revoked the patent by limiting it to a specific restricted claim wording, and ordered Hartmann to bear the majority of the costs.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked EP 2 755 901, a patent owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S concerning a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann's appeals against the first instance decision were rejected, while Omni-Pac's appeal on the counterclaim for revocation succeeded to the extent that the patent was narrowed to a specific modified claim wording. The court found that the broader claim 1 lacked novelty and/or inventive step over prior art, but the modified claims incorporating additional features (label covering the nose and apertures, nose working as a hook) were patentable.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals and partially revoked the patent, limiting it to a specific amended claim wording that incorporated additional features regarding the label covering the nose and apertures and the nose working as a hook.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.
This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Electronic Content, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned enforcement proceedings related to EP 2 465 265. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the various Disney defendants. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
SprintRay Inc. v.Defendants (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that under Article 49(6) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, the language of the patent (German) is the mandatory language of proceedings before the Central Division, with no legal basis for a change. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English, conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and permitted simultaneous interpretation at the defendants' own cost only if properly requested in German.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, where the language of the patent is binding. The auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English were also rejected.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, as Article 49(6) UPCA establishes the patent language as the mandatory language of proceedings. The court also rejected the defendants' subsidiary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, while granting leave to appeal on the ground that the question is of fundamental importance.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This order of the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights filed by AorticLab in proceedings involving EP 2 129 425. The underlying dispute arose from Emboline's infringement action and AorticLab's conditional counterclaim for revocation, which the Local Division Munich left undecided after finding no infringement. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, granted re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, and Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is an order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 909 047. The Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's (Yangtze Memory Technologies) access to technical details about the Z01M die to 'attorneys' eyes only' or, alternatively, to a single employee subject to a five-year bar from SDRAM R&D work. The Court rejected these restrictions, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate why the existing Confidentiality Club was insufficient, and granted access to the Claimant's UPC representatives and the four employees it had identified.
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant, Boa Technologies Inc., filed an application under Rule 30(2) RoP seeking permission to lodge subsequent auxiliary requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur provisionally allowed the introduction of the auxiliary requests but stayed the assessment of the application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, granting the Defendants an additional term to respond and requiring the Claimant to address the consequences of a recent Court of Appeal decision.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural matters arising from infringement proceedings involving European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The court rejected as inadmissible NST's appeals against the Munich Local Division's dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production, finding them filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period. The court also rejected as inadmissible NST's new R. 190 RoP applications filed directly with the Court of Appeal, holding that refiling substantially the same evidence production request without new facts would circumvent the appeal mechanism.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC Court of Appeal)
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the decision of the Local Division, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals. The court addressed issues including the temporal applicability of the UPC Agreement, the interpretation of patent claims incorporating manufacturing processes, and the jurisdiction of the UPC over pre-existing facts.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Brussels concerning EP 3 732 827. BARCO sought leave to amend the patent by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) following an adverse outcome at the EPO Opposition Division oral hearing. The Court dismissed BARCO's application, holding that the conditions of R. 263 RoP and R. 30 RoP were not met because the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, BARCO failed to align its UPC and EPO proceedings in a timely manner, and there was no sufficient connection between the proposed changes and YEALINK's specific invalidity arguments.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights. AorticLab had filed a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement, and after the Local Division Munich found no infringement, AorticLab missed the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal rejected Emboline's request for review, granted AorticLab's application for re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's late-filed appeal admissible.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
BARCO sought leave to amend its patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) to align UPC infringement and revocation proceedings with parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that BARCO could have foreseen the need for amendment from the outset and failed to align its procedural strategies in a timely manner. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural issues arising from NST's appeals against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The Court held that NST's appeals against the dismissal of its R. 190 RoP evidence production applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed R. 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were also inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC-CoA-365/2025, UPC-CoA-367/2025)
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the Local Division's decision, but the Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals and ordered Knaus Tabbert to bear the court fees and costs of the proceedings. The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 for each of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on procedural issues arising from Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) attempts to obtain evidence production orders under Rule 190 RoP against Qualcomm in infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. The court held that NST's appeals against the first-instance dismissal of its Rule 190 applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed Rule 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, Roborock International B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed PAPST LICENSING's infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device) against three Roborock entities, finding no infringement of claims 1 and 10. The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on the court finding patent infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim. Costs were split 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants, with the defendants bearing the costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerned an appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction. Occlutech had obtained a PI against Lepu for alleged infringement of EP 2 387 951 through its MemoCarna ASD and VSD occlusion devices. The Local Division Hamburg had ordered Lepu to pay EUR 58,800 in forfeited penalties for continuing to offer the attacked embodiments via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform despite the injunction. The Court of Appeal rejected Lepu's appeal, finding that its compliance measures, including geo-blocking and disclaimers, were insufficient to ensure compliance with the PI order.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.
This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) concerns a Rule 9 application by the GC Aesthetics Defendants objecting to further written pleadings on infringement in Establishment Labs S.A.'s (LABS) Rejoinder, and an alternative Rule 36 application by LABS seeking further pleadings. The court ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections of LABS's Rejoinder (other than paragraphs 611-616) are inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings. LABS was ordered to file a revised Rejoinder, and the Defendants were granted an extended deadline of 7 September 2026 to include further written pleadings in their Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence of the Application to Amend the Patent.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Brussels concerns EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (the GC Aesthetics group) filed a Rule 9 RoP application seeking to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder, while LABS filed a Rule 36 RoP application requesting further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, ordering LABS to file a revised Rejoinder and granting the Defendants an extended deadline for further submissions.
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Asustek Computer Inc & Anr.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Asustek Computer Inc. concerning Indian Patents No. 424507 and 338105. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The court allowed the withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patents, granting liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the License Agreement is terminated or expires.
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain
This is a first appeal filed by M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563), while the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts alleging infringement. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served, as service was effected on invalid/inoperative addresses, leading the trial court to wrongly draw a presumption of service. The court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3685783, in which both parties jointly requested that certain information be classified as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 VerfO. The court granted the request, finding a legitimate interest in protecting information regarding attorney time expenditure and hourly rates from public access. The order classified specific greyed-out passages in the respondents' cost determination application and the applicant's response as confidential.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerned a reimbursement request filed by the Claimant after the withdrawal of an infringement action. The court declared the request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees inadmissible, holding that such applications cannot be filed in closed proceedings without first requesting reopening, that the Claimant had forfeited its right by informing the court no cost decision was needed, and that filing almost two months after closure was unreasonable. Leave to appeal was granted.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court suspended the cost assessment proceedings (UPC_CFI_256/2025) arising from a previously rejected ex parte application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3685783. The court set the dispute value for the interim measures proceedings at EUR 1,000,000.00 and ordered the suspension of the cost assessment until the final decision in the main infringement and revocation proceedings pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Sibio Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, United States of America
DECISION
Kanti Bhushan v.Kushal Singh
The petitioner Kanti Bhushan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I, Mandi), which had set aside the trial court's status quo order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court had improperly converted itself into a trial court and reassessed the matter without first finding that the trial court's order suffered from perversity.
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)
The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Assistant Controller Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in Indian Patent Application No. 202117018485. A separate application seeking condonation of a 9-day delay in refiling the appeal was allowed. Notice was issued to the Respondent, who accepted notice and was granted one week to file a reply, with the matter listed for hearing on 01.09.2026.
Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This matter concerns an application (GA-COM/1/2026) filed by Haw Par Corporation Limited on 5th August, 2026, seeking restoration of its earlier application (IPDATM 252 of 2023), which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. Before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division, the Court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
Haw Par Brothers International Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order of the Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Division) in an interlocutory application (IA No. GA-COM/1/2026) filed in the main proceeding IPDATM/249/2023. The petitioner, Haw Par Brothers International Limited, sought restoration of the main application, which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application, filed on 7th August, 2026, was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
M/S KRBL Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
The Plaintiff, M/S KRBL Limited, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the trademark 'ROYAL GATE' with the device of 'INDIA GATE' on the ground of passing off, since the INDIA GATE mark was unregistered at the time of filing. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff acquired registered rights in the INDIA GATE trademark (No. 599833 in Class 30) via an Assignment Deed dated 06.08.2019, and the mark was subsequently declared a well-known trademark. The Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the registration and well-known status and add a claim of infringement. The Court allowed the amendment application, subject to the Plaintiff paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, finding that the basic structure of the suit remained unchanged.
Krbl Limited v.P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
KRBL Limited filed two petitions under CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 challenging the Trial Court's order dated 01.08.2026, which had dismissed the parties' joint applications seeking a six-month extension to conclude evidence in two trademark suits filed in 2010. The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court's orders, granting a final six-month extension to conclude evidence, with the caveat that no further extensions would be granted.
Google LLC, Google Germany GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance regarding an application under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) requested the change, while BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) opposed it. The President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patents were granted, without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and others v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 265 RoP. The appellants (Ericsson entities) had appealed a decision of the Lisbon Local Division that dismissed their application under Rules 360 and 361 RoP to strike out the respondent's (Shenzhen Transsion's) requests for injunctive relief in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 123 910. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, finding the requirements of Rule 265.1 RoP satisfied, and declared the proceedings closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a damages determination proceeding. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against three Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed European Patent No. 3 669 828 with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and related system. The order confirms the date for an oral hearing on 10 September 2026, sets deadlines for further submissions, and establishes the value of the dispute at 15 million EUR.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in footwear, filed a praecipe seeking withdrawal of the present Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh and comprehensive suit. The Plaintiff cited the inadvertent non-follow-up of earlier 2021 proceedings (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) and the need to comprehensively plead all material facts and subsequent developments as grounds for withdrawal. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Jagdev Chand (Since Deceased) Through LRs v.Gurbaksh Singh & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jagdev Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Una) which had partly allowed an appeal filed by respondent Gurbaksh Singh. The respondent had sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit concerning jointly owned land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restored the trial court's order dismissing the injunction application, holding that the appellate court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial court without recording any finding of perversity.
The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala v.Karthik Dev R
This review petition was filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (the 2nd respondent in the original writ appeal) seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2026 in W.A. No. 1550 of 2025, which dismissed its writ appeal on the ground of maintainability. The core issue was whether a quasi-judicial body, whose decision was set aside by a Single Judge in a writ petition, could maintain a writ appeal to defend its own order. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition, holding that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and that the petitioner's attempt was merely to re-agitate issues already decided on merits.
Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
State v.Manoj Kumar
The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
Metro Brands Limited, the proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' (used since 1955 in relation to footwear), sought withdrawal of its 2026 commercial IP suit against Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe and others with liberty to file a fresh suit. The plaintiff explained that an earlier 2021 suit (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) against related defendants had inadvertently not been followed up, and the material facts of those earlier proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of proceedings and reimbursement of court fees in a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157. All parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation before the closure of the written procedure, and no cost decision was requested. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and the respective counterclaimants.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation, arguing lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The UPC Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) found the patent invalid, holding that the claimed subject matter was obvious over prior art D1 in view of D3, and revoked the patent in its entirety while dismissing all infringement claims.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and others
This Unified Patent Court order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two divisional patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GSK against multiple Moderna entities. Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO Opposition Division, the Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose. The Court postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings regarding EP941, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and invited the parties to file written submissions on the impact of the EPO decisions.
Cybex GmbH v.NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted the preliminary injunction in substantial part, ordering the respondents to cease offering and supplying the accused child seat products and base system across multiple UPC member states, and to provide information on distribution channels. The court held that relying on a narrower claim set (combination of Claims 1 and 2) as the main request does not preclude preliminary measures, but refused to admit auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation regarding EP 3 849 157. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the Claimant and the two Defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 through Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter, including all auxiliary requests, was obvious over the prior art, and dismissed Maxell's infringement action.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The claimant Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology had filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 849 157 against multiple ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two GSK divisional patents, EP856 and EP941, against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO opposition division, PBNT applied for a stay of the UPC proceedings. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, postponed its decision on the stay request pending the written grounds of the TBA decision, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v.Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Getmohit Cab Private Limited and others for allegedly using the 'BHARATBENZ' mark and associated device marks/logo on buses. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, and the Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
MLCU Pvt. Ltd. (Marachhiya and Laxmi Satyam Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) v.RBI Through Regional Officer
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of iron pipes, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of its cash credit accounts into term loans, reduction of interest rates, grant of a 12-month moratorium, and enhancement of credit limits up to Rs. 2 Crores from ICICI Bank. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that ICICI Bank is a private financial entity not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it is regulated by the RBI. The court further held that the reliefs sought were contractual and commercial in nature and did not involve any public duty or statutory obligation.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry
Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar (proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry)
Bisleri International Private Limited sued Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, for trademark infringement and copyright piracy arising from the defendant's use of the mark 'Bislie' on packaged drinking water. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case that 'Bislie' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri,' with the defendant having merely deleted the letter 'r' and rearranged 'e' and 'i.' The court granted ad-interim relief including injunctive relief and appointment of a Court Receiver to search and seize infringing goods.