Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 3 of 424

patent LITIGATION · Oct 2, 2026

Micron Technology, Inc. v.Ultron AG, Lexar Europe B.V., Apacer Technology B.V.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0002660/2026

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2, Lexar Europe B.V. The Court had attempted service by registered post in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but the documents were not collected and were returned undelivered. The Claimant requested alternative service via a Dutch judicial officer (gerechtsdeurwaarder) under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and the Court granted the request.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 2, 2026

Canfield Scientific GmbH et al. v.QUANTIFICARE S.A.

Court of Appeal · UPC_DE24DB53F2

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a separate invalidity action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that since the appeal also challenged the first-instance dismissal of Canfield's invalidity counterclaim, the appeal court would itself review the patent's validity, making a stay unjustified. The court further noted that the invalidity action before the Central Chamber was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
patent LITIGATION · Oct 2, 2026

Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others v.QUANTIFICARE S.A. (EP 3 156 843)

Court of Appeal · UPC_AFB17882D6

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a revocation action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that no special circumstances justified a stay, particularly because the appeal court would itself review the validity of the patent in the context of Canfield's appeal against the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim, and because the third-party revocation action was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd v.John Doe And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd, which operates the digital streaming platform 'FanCode', sought a 'dynamic+' injunction to notify defendants of further infringing websites streaming its licensed sporting events without filing fresh applications each time. The Delhi High Court, after balancing the need to combat online piracy of live sporting events against the caution expressed in Home Box Office Inc. v. Streamzy.to regarding not conferring adjudicatory powers on intermediaries, allowed the application and granted a tailored mechanism permitting the plaintiff to notify domain registrars, ISPs, and authorities by email, with corresponding obligations to suspend or block access within specified timeframes.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Glisten LLC v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court

Glisten LLC appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its Indian Patent Application No. 202017005875 titled 'Gemstone Coating and Methods of Making and Using the Same.' The appellant contended that the Assistant Controller violated principles of natural justice by refusing the application on the ground that claims 1 to 17 lacked inventive step, when the hearing notice had confined the inventive step objection solely to claim 18. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the application for fresh consideration, holding that the respondent could not raise a fresh or revived objection without putting the appellant on notice and affording it an opportunity to respond.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Kaira District Co-Operative v.Asian Beverage Private Limited.

Madras High Court

Court decision.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. v.Millennium And Copthorne International Ltd. & Anr.

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

This case arose from a trademark infringement and passing off suit filed by Millennium & Copthorne International Ltd. against Hotel Millennium Continental Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning the mark 'Millennium' and its logo. The defendant had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed, leading to an SLP before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred the matter to mediation by former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and the parties ultimately settled their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 22 September 2026, with the Court disposing of the appeal and the pending suit in terms of the settlement.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited v.Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav Trading As Yadav Steel Furniture Works

Delhi High Court - Orders

Triveni Household Items Manufacturer Private Limited filed a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC against Mr. Virendra Kumar Yadav for alleged willful disobedience of a court order dated 08.07.2026, in which the respondent had undertaken not to use the disputed words and to withdraw Trade Mark Application No. 6702854 for the mark 'TRIVENI Y' in Class 20. The petitioner contended that the respondent continued to use the trademark in defiance of the undertaking given to the court. The Delhi High Court directed issuance of notice to the respondent and listed the matter for hearing on 11.03.2027.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System

Bombay High Court

The plaintiffs, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, proprietors of the trademark 'KSB' in Classes 7, 9, 11 and 35, filed a commercial intellectual property rights suit against M/s. UK Fire System for trademark infringement. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' trademark rights and agreeing not to use the 'KSB' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and not to deal in counterfeit products. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

KSB SE & Co. KGaA & Anr. v.M/s. UK Fire System

Bombay High Court

This was a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by KSB SE & Co. KGaA and another against M/s. UK Fire System for alleged infringement of the trademark 'KSB' registered in Classes 7, 9, 11, and 35. The defendant, through its sole proprietor Mr. Shah Shariq Ahmed, filed an affidavit-in-reply giving undertakings acknowledging the plaintiffs' proprietorship of the 'KSB' trademark and agreeing not to use the mark or any deceptively similar mark, not to deal in counterfeit products, and to surrender any infringing material. The court accepted the undertakings and decreed the suit on admission, while disposing of the connected interim application.
patent · Oct 1, 2026

Simrat Randhawa & Others v.Poonam Dhawan & Others

Himachal Pradesh High Court

This Civil Revision petition challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Solan, dated 31.07.2025, which had set aside the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kasauli dismissing the plaintiff's application for injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. The plaintiff, Poonam Dhawan, claimed co-ownership of joint property through a registered Will dated 06.06.2014 executed by Smt. Surinder Kaur, while the defendants contended she was a non-agriculturist barred from inheriting under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The High Court allowed the revision, quashed the appellate court's order, and rejected the plaintiff's injunction application, holding that the appellate court had improperly substituted its discretion for that of the trial court.
patent · Sep 30, 2026

Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP v.RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders

This case concerns a rectification petition filed by Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP against RPCI Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. regarding the trade mark/device mark 'MAAERI'. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking to restrain the petitioner from misrepresenting an earlier order dated 30.03.2026 to the Chief Medical Officer of Uttar Pradesh, implying that respondents had been restrained from using the 'MAAERI' mark. The court clarified that the earlier order only directed respondents not to create third-party proprietary rights in the mark, and did not restrain them from using it.
patent · Sep 30, 2026

Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr

Delhi High Court

This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, filed by Naman Agarwal, Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 with M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr. The respondents did not dispute the existence of the arbitration agreement. The Delhi High Court found no impediment in appointing a sole arbitrator and appointed Mr. Sagar Saxena, Advocate, as the Sole Arbitrator, with the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
patent LITIGATION · Sep 30, 2026

Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities (UPC-CoA-165/2026)

Court of Appeal · UPC_F92CB0322F

The UPC Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Hurtel Sp. z o.o.'s application for access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in relation to the concluded main proceedings (UPC-CoA-534/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997. The court held that the language of the access application must correspond to the language of the main proceedings, which was German. Hurtel was granted the opportunity to resubmit its application in German by October 9, 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 30, 2026

Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin

Court of Appeal · UPC_E7D2343450

Hurtel Sp. z o.o. applied to the UPC Court of Appeal for access to the case file of proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities were parties. The main proceedings had been conducted in German, and Hurtel initially filed its access request in a different language. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the access application must match the language of the main proceedings and ordered Hurtel to resubmit its request in German by October 9, 2026.
patent · Sep 30, 2026

Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) v.Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders

The plaintiff, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a globally recognized HR organization with nearly 340,000 members across 180 countries, filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Sphinx Worldbiz Ltd and others for using the mark 'SHRM PRO' and related formative marks. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered 'SHRM' trademarks, and directed the domain registrar and app store platforms to take down the infringing website and mobile applications.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders

This is a procedural order in a patent appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was received from the Roster Bench as it had been substantially heard by the Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on 16 October 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 29, 2026

NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG

Court of Appeal · UPC_2385B7319F

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses NVIDIA's request for reimbursement of court fees paid in error. NVIDIA had filed a reinstatement application and an appeal against the decision on the revocation counterclaim under the wrong case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) before re-filing under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal partially granted the reimbursement, ordering the Registry to refund 2,940 EUR in overpaid appeal fees and 460 EUR in overpaid reinstatement application fees.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 29, 2026

NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG

Court of Appeal · UPC_FD12BF2604

This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and a request for reimbursement. NVIDIA had filed an appeal and a request for re-instatement under an incorrect case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) and subsequently re-filed them under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal ordered partial reimbursement of 2,940 EUR for overpaid appeal fees and full reimbursement of 460 EUR for the overpaid re-instatement application fee.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 29, 2026

NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

UPC Court · UPC_8E0B04337C

NovaCloud Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against multiple Amazon entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 4 024 777. Both parties subsequently withdrew their respective claims—the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation—and agreed that each party would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and set the overall value of the dispute at 5 Mio. EUR.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto And Another

Madras High Court

Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, sought an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB for allegedly infringing its registered marks by using 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The plaintiff contended that the defendants' use of a deceptively similar mark amounted to trademark infringement. The Court extended the previously granted interim stay until the next date of hearing, noting that settlement discussions between the parties were underway.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited And Anr.

Calcutta High Court

This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning trademarks originally associated with Dunlop India Limited (DIL). The petitioner, Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited, argued that the chain of trademark assignments from DIL to the respondent Glorious Investments Limited is void because the assignments post-date the winding up petition against DIL, which was allowed on 31st January, 2013, with the winding up dating back to the date of filing. The petitioner further contended that DIL had admitted to being out of production at its Sahaganj and Ambattur Units, supporting non-use of the mark for over five years. The arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned to 1st October, 2026.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

M/s. Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., East Zone, Kolkata v.Union of India & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by IRCTC challenging orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directing it to pay gratuity to a contract worker who had served through three different contractors from 2002 to 2020. The court held that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract labour under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, but modified the order to grant IRCTC liberty to recover the gratuity amount from the contractor.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

Narender Kumar v.The State

Delhi District Court

This criminal revision petition was filed by Narender Kumar, proprietor of M/s Kundan Trading Company, challenging the trial court's order dated 04.06.2024 discharging the accused persons in FIR No. 03/2019 registered under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, finding no infirmity or illegality in the discharge order, holding that the recovered goods bore the mark of KTC Japan (Kyoto Tools Company) and not the complainant's mark, and that the offence of falsification of trade mark was not made out against the accused.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

State v.Yuvraj Singh And Ors.

Delhi District Court

The State prosecuted accused Ashok Kumar (along with Yuvraj Singh, whose proceedings were later abated) for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, alleging that counterfeit Maruti Suzuki products were recovered from his shop during a raid on 19.07.2018. The complainant, Sh. Surender Singh, an employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd. (authorized by M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.), turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the seized goods, and the case property was destroyed in a fire. The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted Ashok Kumar, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
patent · Sep 29, 2026

Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd v.Blueheavenin.Com & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders

Esme Consumer Pvt. Ltd., the registered proprietor of the trademarks 'BLUE HEAVEN' and associated formative/device marks, filed a commercial suit against Blueheavenin.Com and others for online trademark infringement and cybersquatting. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant No. 1 was operating the domain blueheavenin.com, which incorporated its trademark in its entirety and presented itself as the official website, while Defendant No. 2 was hosting an infringing BLUE HEAVEN cosmetics page on an unrelated domain. The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from operating the impugned websites and directed the domain registrars/intermediaries to preserve records and transfer-lock the domain names.
patent dismissed · Sep 29, 2026

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Assistant Controller of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · C.M.A.(PT) No.33 of 2024

Nokia Technologies Oy filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 20th September 2023 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing Indian Patent Application No.202047054780. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel sought permission to withdraw the appeal and made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, with no order as to costs.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 28, 2026

Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000040/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Emboline Inc.'s application seeking to disregard certain evidence as late-filed or, alternatively, to be granted leave to file further written pleadings in the appeal proceedings. The disputed evidence consisted of Exhibit HRM 26 (a written witness statement of Prof. Marco De Carlo) and paragraphs 101–120 of AorticLab srl's Statement of response. The Court held that no further pleadings or evidence would be allowed at that stage and ordered the written procedure to be closed.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 28, 2026

NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG

Court of Appeal · UPC_D2CB03C5B9

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted NVIDIA's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing NVIDIA to file an out-of-time appeal and appeal brief against the Local Division Munich's decision of March 11, 2026, concerning EP 3 743 812. The respondents (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG) did not oppose the application. The court found that NVIDIA could not reasonably have known that a separate appeal was required for its conditional nullity counterclaim until the Court of Appeal's clarification order of July 16, 2026 in the Emboline v. AorticLab case.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 28, 2026

Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Centripetal Limited

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CB16A90B62

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Keysight's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, allowing it to lodge an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's decision not to rule on its conditional counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 821 580. The Court found that Keysight could not reasonably have been expected to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal's 16 July 2026 order in Emboline v. AorticLab clarified the procedural pathway for conditional counterclaimants. The Court also rejected Centripetal's request to shorten or modify the three-month time limit for filing the Statement of response under R. 235.1 RoP.
1 234•••424
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 →