Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 1 of 453

patent settled · Jul 30, 2026

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 410/2020

AstraZeneca AB and another plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The defendant agreed to withdraw its counter-claim of invalidity and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour. The court disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement and granted refund of court fees to the plaintiffs.
patent settled · Jul 30, 2026

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 419/2020

AstraZeneca AB sued USV Private Limited for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the settlement, USV agreed to withdraw its invalidity counterclaim and waive the cost of Rs. 5 lakhs previously awarded in its favour in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 157/2020. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, making the Settlement Agreement part of the decree.
patent settled · Jul 29, 2026

Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 5/2026 & connected matters (C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 6/2026 and C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 25/2025)

Asustek Computer Inc filed revocation petitions under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian patents IN'056 and IN'246, while Nokia had filed a separate infringement suit (CS(COMM) 643/2025) against Asustek alleging infringement of patents IN'507 and IN'105. During the pendency of proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Delhi High Court allowed Asustek to withdraw the revocation petitions and disposed of them with liberty to reinstitute proceedings in accordance with law if so required.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 29, 2026

Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 799/2026

Novartis AG sued Torrent Pharmaceuticals for infringement of Indian Patent No. 275655 covering the anti-cancer drug Dabrafenib. Torrent accepted summons and voluntarily undertook not to manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any Dabrafenib-containing API or formulation during the patent's validity. The Delhi High Court accepted the undertaking as part of the decree, effectively granting Novartis the relief of a permanent injunction without contest, while preserving Torrent's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act to use the compound for research purposes.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2026

M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 205 of 2026

MRF Limited, a well-known manufacturer of tyres and automotive products, filed suit against Mr. Aas Mohammed, who was operating under the trade name 'MRF Batteries' in New Delhi. MRF sought interim injunctions on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement of original artworks, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The Madras High Court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of MRF's registered trademarks across multiple classes (1, 9, 12, and 35), granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 27, 2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 763/2026

Incyte Holdings sued Macleods Pharmaceuticals for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 covering the novel compound Ruxolitinib, used in treating myelofibrosis and polycythemia vera. Macleods had listed Ruxolitinib products as 'Under Development' in its US CTD Product List and was offering the API for sale on Pharmacompass. The defendant gave an undertaking not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity (expiring 12.12.2026), and the suit was disposed of with the undertaking binding the defendant while preserving its Section 107A research rights.
patent interim order · Jul 23, 2026

Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 38/2026

Nature Coatings Inc has filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent for Application No. 202227024750. The court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who accepted notice through counsel, with timelines set for filing reply and rejoinder.
patent remanded · Jul 23, 2026

Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 37/2023

Array Biopharma Inc appealed against the refusal of its patent application No. 450/DELNP/2015 directed to a pharmaceutical combination of a B-Raf inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab/erlotinib), and optionally a PI3K-alpha inhibitor. The Controller had refused the application citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning deficient on multiple grounds, including failure to properly assess synergistic technical advancement, mechanical application of Section 3(d) without analyzing enhanced therapeutic efficacy, and incorrect interpretation of Section 3(i) as barring the claimed product combination. The court remanded the matter for de novo reconsideration with directions to decide within six months.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 22, 2026

Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 552/2024 & I.A. 32616/2024

Opella Healthcare Group, part of the Sanofi Group and registered proprietor of the well-known pharmaceutical trademark PHENSEDYL (used in India since 1995), sued Pureca Laboratories for adopting the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a copycat trade dress for identical cough syrup products. The Defendant's trademark registration (No. 3791026) and copyright registration (No. A-130319/2019) had already been cancelled by the Court in prior rectification proceedings. With the Defendant failing to appear and being set ex parte, the Court granted summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act, holding that the Defendant had no real prospect of defending the claims and that the Plaintiff had established both trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off.
patent interim order · Jul 22, 2026

Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited

Madras High Court · OA No. 250 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 91 of 2026

Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed a patent infringement suit against Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at a project site in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The court extended the previously granted interim injunction until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks for further hearing.
patent settled · Jul 22, 2026

Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 26/2025

Asustek Computer Inc filed a patent revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent IN'206. Nokia had separately filed CS(COMM) 643/2025 alleging infringement of patent nos. 424507 and 338105. During pendency, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. Consequently, the Delhi High Court permitted withdrawal of the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
patent settled · Jul 21, 2026

Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products

Bombay High Court · COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 534 OF 2016

Hamilton Housewares, makers of the Milton Pickle Container, sued Yogi Products, makers of the Apex Pickle Container, alleging trade dress infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in their artistic works, industrial drawings, and product packaging. The parties settled the dispute through Consent Terms executed in court, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission encompassing all the injunction reliefs sought by the plaintiffs. The court accepted the Consent Terms as undertakings to the court and disposed of the suit accordingly.
patent interim order · Jul 17, 2026

SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2026

SRF Limited has filed a petition seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 296159 held by Arkema Inc & Anr. under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court's Intellectual Property Division. The court disposed of several procedural interlocutory applications—granting exemption from filing certain certificates, permitting additional documents, and issuing notice to the respondents. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar on 27 October 2026.
patent interim order · Jul 17, 2026

Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 118226543

Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.

· UPC_9AAFB22CD9

Rectification application under Rule 353 RoP before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli sought correction of a material error in a prior decision dated 26.5.2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023 and later withdrew it on 26.11.2024. The Court found the request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence, as the defendant did not file any observations.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 2026

Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · 3182328

The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · 98336192

Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
patent settled · Jul 9, 2026

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 12/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd to withdraw its petition for revocation of AstraZeneca AB's patent IN235625. The petition was withdrawn due to a settlement between the parties. The court disposed of the petition and pending applications. The case highlights the importance of settlement in resolving intellectual property disputes. The patent in question was related to a pharmaceutical invention.
patent interim order · Jul 9, 2026

Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 405/2023 & CC(COMM) 32/2024

The Delhi High Court has framed issues in a patent infringement case between Largan Precision Co. Ltd and Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors. The court has appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence and has directed the parties to adhere to a schedule for filing affidavits and completing cross-examination. The case relates to the alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. IN 395095.
patent · Jul 4, 2026

Wealth, Inc. v.--

· PGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
patent · Jul 4, 2026

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

· IPR2026-00333

Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 17 claims of Bunker Hill’s ’508 hybrid‑drive patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on a technical expert declaration and argues no secondary considerations exist.
patent · Jul 4, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC

· IPR2026-00325

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 3, 2026

Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CoA_302/2025

This case concerns an application by Rematec under R. 333 RoP seeking review of a judge-rapporteur's order that dismissed Rematec's request to have its Application for a cost decision, originally filed with the Court of Appeal, referred to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division) while preserving the original filing date. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but unfounded, ruling that cost decision proceedings must be initiated before the Court of First Instance even when they concern costs of appeal proceedings, and dismissed the application.
patent · Jul 3, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.

· IPR2026-00297

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited

Mannheim Local Division · UPC-CoA-58/2026

IPG Laser appealed a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that had dismissed its counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 951 625 and found it liable for direct infringement. Shortly after filing the appeal, IPG Laser applied to withdraw it, requesting full or partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
patent · Jul 1, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00188

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Golden Eye's 9,271,243 patent covering WLAN transmit‑power adjustment. The challenger relies on prior‑art references Hills, Wang and Calhoun to argue obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Jul 1, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.GOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

· IPR2026-00187

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
patent · Jul 1, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00186

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 30, 2026

ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_2258/2026

ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 relating to dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities for alleged indirect infringement of method claim 1 based on Lenovo's marketing of an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application, holding that ParTec failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and did not provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product onto the market.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Robert Bosch Doo Beograd and Others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage

· UPC-CoA-50/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections to the court's competence. The court addressed the interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA regarding the requirements for establishing competence over multiple defendants, holding that belonging to the same group of companies can constitute a commercial relationship and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition requires the same patent and substantially the same products, irrespective of commercial designations or supply channels.
1 23•••453
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →