Patent Cases

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

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

Page 4 of 424

patent · Sep 28, 2026

Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr

The plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, filed a commercial suit against M/S GM Foods & Anr. Defendant No. 1 sought to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on an arbitration clause in a Tripartite Lease Agreement dated 19.03.2024. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application, holding that the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement did not bind the parties with respect to their separate inter se agreement governing their rights and obligations, and that an arbitration agreement cannot be inferred where none exists.

patent interim order · Sep 28, 2026

Havells India Limited v.Ratheesh Govindan & Ors. (including proposed defendant nos. 5-8: Mohit Talwar and associated entities)

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 283/2020

This is an order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 283/2020) filed by Havells India Limited against Ratheesh Govindan and others for trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff sought impleadment of proposed defendants 5 to 8, who were identified as the manufacturers and controlling entities behind the infringing products. The Court allowed the impleadment application, noting that the proposed defendants were not innocent or bona fide users, and bound them to the existing interim injunction order dated 30.07.2020.

patent · Sep 24, 2026

Sri Veerendra Patil Kumbri v.Sri Madiwalayya G Math

Karnataka High Court

The petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes arising from a Share Purchase Agreement dated 23.01.2023. The dispute concerned Clause 7.1 of the agreement, under which the petitioners had agreed to withdraw the trade name 'SOUTHERN' from the companies, believing the respondents had registered it as a trademark, which later turned out to be untrue. The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator.

patent · Sep 24, 2026

M/s Harisons (India) Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s Harilal and Sons and Another

Allahabad High Court

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which rejected the petitioner's application seeking expeditious disposal of its pending interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, on the ground that the injunction application could not be adjudicated while the respondents' Order VII Rule 11 application remained pending. The Allahabad High Court held that the Commercial Court had misread the High Court's earlier interim order dated 06.04.2026, which stayed only the amendment order and not the entire suit proceedings, and that the pendency of an Order VII Rule 11 application does not oust the trial court's jurisdiction to decide an interim injunction application on its merits.

patent · Sep 24, 2026

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors v.M/S Pooja Lubricant

Delhi High Court - Orders

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Aktiebolaget Volvo and its related entities restraining M/S Pooja Lubricant from using the marks 'MAX VOLVO', 'MAX VOLWO', 'VOLWO GOLD', and other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark 'VOLVO' in relation to lubricants and allied goods. The court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement, passing off, and dilution, and that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury warranted urgent relief without prior notice to the defendant.

patent · Sep 24, 2026

Ankit Kumar Singla v.The State NCT of Delhi Through SHO Police Station Nangloi & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders

The petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 478/2021 registered at Police Station Nangloi for offences under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, on the ground that the complainant (respondent no. 2) had compromised the dispute. Upon the court observing that in trademark infringement or passing off cases the general public is the victim and not merely the complainant, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition to face trial. The petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

patent interim order · Sep 24, 2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1051/2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation and its associated entities filed a patent infringement suit against Precise Bio Pharma Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were offering for sale Ruxolitinib/Ruxolitinib Phosphate API through their website and third-party platforms, and had obtained a manufacturing licence and developed a generic version of the patented compound. The court, satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib until the next date of hearing.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 24, 2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Melody Healthcare Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 1054/2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation and others filed a patent infringement suit against Melody Healthcare Private Limited before the Delhi High Court, alleging infringement of Indian Patent No. 269841 which protects the compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant was offering for sale Ruxolitinib Phosphate API on third-party platforms and had obtained a manufacturing licence to commercially produce a generic version. The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing Ruxolitinib that would infringe the suit patent.

patent · Sep 23, 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 directions order in a commercial appeal concerning patents before the Delhi High Court. The appellant's counsel submitted that the matter had already been heard at length by the predecessor bench of Justice Jyoti Singh and that he was concluding his rejoinder arguments before that bench. The court directed the matter to be relisted before Justice Jyoti Singh's bench on 29th September 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 23, 2026

2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson and Others (EP 3 689 383)

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_CFI_029/2026

This order from the UPC Local Division Brussels addressed procedural matters in consolidated proceedings concerning EP 3 689 383, a patent owned by the United States of America (NIH). The court dismissed the NIH's request to be reclassified as co-claimant in the infringement action brought by 2seventy bio, Inc. against Janssen and Legend Biotech defendants, while recognizing NIH as defendant in the counterclaims for revocation. The court also dismissed the defendants' R. 190 RoP applications to produce evidence from the NIH regarding laboratory notebooks, inventor disclosures, grant applications, and prior notice documentation.

patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 23, 2026

Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr. Dinesh Kumar (Defendant No. 1) and Mr. Vijay (Defendant No. 4)

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) 478/22

This commercial suit was filed by Panasonic Life Solution India Pvt. Ltd., the licensee of the 'ANCHOR' trademark originally owned by Panasonic Corporation, against Mr. Dinesh Kumar and others for trademark/copyright infringement and passing off under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Sections 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that defendants no. 1 and 4 had infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the ANCHOR trademark/label and granted a decree of permanent injunction along with damages of Rs. 3,10,000/- and simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of e-filing of the suit.

patent · Sep 22, 2026

Tirupati Vancom Private Limited & Anr v.The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing and exporting fly ash and fly ash bricks, challenged the rectification order dated 20.05.2022 which upheld the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 49,60,054/- for accumulated/unutilized Input Tax Credit on exports made under Letter of Undertaking for the period December 2019 to March 2020. The Calcutta High Court found that the Appellate Authority had expanded the scope of the Show Cause Notice by introducing grounds relating to Rule 96A, Rule 96B, and Rule 89(4)(c) of the CGST Rules, 2017, which were never part of the original notice, thereby denying the petitioners an opportunity to rebut those allegations. The Court set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after affording a fresh opportunity of hearing.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 22, 2026

KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)

· UPC_CFI_530/2025

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Paris Local Division following a case management conference in a patent infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP2949070 held by KEEEX SAS. The order addresses the value of the dispute (estimated at €6,622,802,000), the prospects for amicable resolution, the main legal points to be argued at the oral hearing, and the practical arrangements for the hearing scheduled for October 6, 2026. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of patent claims relating to digital identification fingerprints versus digital signatures, the validity of the patent against prior art, and alleged infringement by the defendants.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 21, 2026

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.

· UPC_CFI_2051/2025

This decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. ETRI had filed a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms entities in December 2025, and Meta had filed a counterclaim for revocation in May 2026. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, they withdrew their respective actions and the Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 21, 2026

Sidel Participations SAS v.OMNIA Technologies S.p.A. and Others

· UPC-CoA-90/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS challenging the Central Division Paris's rejection of a Preliminary objection. The core issue was whether the UPC has competence to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patents filed before their grant. The Court held that this is a question of admissibility rather than competence, and that the UPC has competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA for declarations of non-infringement of patents.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 21, 2026

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

· UPC_CFI_196/2025

Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against several Samsung Electronics entities regarding European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court found the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art D1 (US 2006/263048 A1), and all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, resulting in the revocation of the patent in its entirety and dismissal of the infringement action.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 21, 2026

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

· UPC_CFI_196/2025

Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung Electronics entities concerning European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung filed a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it lacked novelty as granted over prior art and that all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, and dismissed the infringement action with costs awarded to Samsung.

patent · Sep 19, 2026

State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.

Delhi District Court

This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.

patent · Sep 19, 2026

State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.

Delhi District Court

This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

patent · Sep 18, 2026

Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors

Delhi High Court

The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CFI_668/2026

This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 3 471 419. Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against Meta Platforms and related entities, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

· UPC_CFI_1310/2025

The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_1310/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1737/2026) concerning EP 4 024 777, filed by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities. The court ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to both sides, rejecting the claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.

· UPC_CFI_575/2025

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants (VeyorEx, Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech) for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor known as the 'Bendy Boom.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent after the termination of a prior licence agreement, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CFI_668/2026

This is a procedural decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 471 419. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions—Huawei's infringement action and the Meta defendants' counterclaim for revocation—and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a proportional 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc. (UPC-CoA-121/2026)

· UPC-CoA-121/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected AMMS's appeal against a cost decision ordering it to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks. The court held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA for appeals against revocation decisions does not extend to separate cost proceedings, and that the Court of First Instance did not exceed its discretion in refusing to stay the cost proceedings or order payment by instalments.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited

· UPC_CFI_1310/2025

This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned EP 4 024 777 and involved a patent infringement action by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each side, rejecting the Claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION · Sep 18, 2026

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.

· UPC_CFI_575/2025

Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants including VeyorEx B.V., Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent through the manufacture and sale of the 'Bendy Boom' telescopic belt conveyor after termination of a prior licence agreement, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation.

patent mixed · Sep 18, 2026

Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2026

Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.

patent interim order · Sep 17, 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 961, 963 & 964 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 260 of 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.

patent · Sep 16, 2026

The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited

Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.

1 •••3 4 5•••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 →