Patent Case Law
12,714 decisions indexed and categorized for practitioners and IP owners.
Recent Key Judgments
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Controller of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd v.Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Radico Khaitan Limited v.Picadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.) v.Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited v.Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
M/S Arpan Biri Factory v.M/S Momin Biri Factory
The petitioner, M/s Arpan Biri Factory, filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18.09.2026 passed by the Commercial Appellate Court (District Judge, South Salmara), which dismissed Misc.(J) Case No. 10/2026 without issuing notice, on the ground that the relief sought was redundant since the connected appeal itself prayed for temporary injunction. The Gauhati High Court agreed with the petitioner that under Section 107 of the CPC, appellate courts possess the same powers as courts of original jurisdiction, and the petitioner had a right to seek temporary injunction during the pendency of the appeal.
Ashok Jain v.State NCT Of Delhi And Anr
The petitioner, Ashok Jain (Accused No. 2), sought quashing of FIR No. 15/2012 registered at P.S. EOW, Delhi, alleging offences under Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to counterfeiting of car speakers bearing the registered trademark 'PIONEER' belonging to Respondent No. 2. The parties had amicably settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Understanding executed in March 2025, with the petitioner agreeing to pay Rs. 1 lakh as full and final settlement. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings qua the petitioner, while directing the police to destroy the seized counterfeit goods.
Colgate-Palmolive Company & Anr. v.Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited
This Chamber Summons was filed by Colgate-Palmolive Company and Colgate-Palmolive (India) Limited in their 1996 trademark infringement and passing off suit against Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Limited, seeking to bring on record six renewed Legal Proceedings Certificates (LPCs) evidencing renewal of their trade mark registrations. The Bombay High Court allowed the application, directing the LPCs to be marked into evidence as Exhibits P-50 to P-55, along with two additional LPCs as P-56 and P-57, while reserving Anchor's liberty to challenge the evidentiary weight and probative value of these documents.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for alleged trademark infringement and passing off, claiming that the defendant's mark 'Amul TRU' was deceptively similar to its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No. 2276842 in Class 32). The defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908 to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, which was allowed by the court, resulting in the dismissal of the suit with no costs.
Asian Beverage Private Limited v.Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited
Asian Beverage Private Limited (plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (Amul Dairy) seeking permanent injunction for trademark infringement and passing off regarding its registered trademark 'TRUE VALLEY' (No.2276842 in Class 32) and the defendant's alleged use of the mark 'Amul TRU'. The court allowed an application filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC, 1908, to dispose of the suit without oral examination of witnesses, and consequently dismissed the suit with no costs.
Annapurna Swadisht Limited v.Gef Foods India Private Limited
The Madras High Court dealt with a trademark dispute between GEF Foods India Private Limited, the proprietor of the registered mark ANNAPOORNA used for blended spices since around 1980, and Annapurna Swadisht Limited, which used the mark ANNAPURNA for snacks and namkeens. The plaintiff sought interim injunctions for trademark infringement and passing off, which were initially granted ex parte on 05.08.2026. The defendant filed applications to vacate the injunction, which the court dismissed, making the ad interim injunction absolute pending disposal of the suit, though confined to the goods and uses where prima facie confusion was established.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
BIOGARAN v.H. Lundbeck A/S
BIOGARAN, a French generic medicines company, filed a revocation action before the UPC Central Division (Milan) seeking to invalidate European Patent No. 4223296 owned by H. Lundbeck A/S, which relates to the use of nalmefene for treating alcohol dependence. BIOGARAN challenged the patent on grounds of added matter, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court dismissed the revocation action, finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered BIOGARAN to bear the costs of the proceedings and pay an interim award of EUR 100,000.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190-Applications (production of evidence) contained in the Munich Local Division's decisions of 11 March 2026, which it had filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that it had taken all due care as required by R. 320 RoP, distinguishing the present case from the AIM v Supponor precedent and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
S.Balakrishnan Unni v.M/s. Vasudeva Vilasam Herbal Remedies (P) Ltd. & Anr.
This is a writ petition filed before the Madras High Court by S. Balakrishnan Unni, trading as Vasudeva Vilasam A.M. Pharmacy, seeking to quash the order dated 12.12.2008 in O.R.A. No. 92/2006/TM/CH passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and to allow his rectification application against the first respondent. The court issued only a procedural order directing impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks as a third respondent and issuance of fresh notice, posting the matter for further hearing.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a consolidated set of matters involving Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula. The petitioner's counsel submitted that evidence was still ongoing and prayed for adjournment of the hearing. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to 22.03.2027, directing that any interim order shall continue.
Raj Kumar Jain v.Pravesh Narula & Anr
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court consolidating multiple connected cases between Raj Kumar Jain and Pravesh Narula, along with related matters. The petitioner's counsel requested adjournment on the ground that evidence was still being recorded. The court acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing to March 22, 2027, directing that any existing interim orders would continue.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. Respondent No. 1, the Registrant, failed to appear, and while physical service had returned undelivered, e-mail service was effected. The court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service within two weeks and listed the matter for directions on October 23, 2026.
The Procter and Gamble Company v.Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals
The Procter and Gamble Company filed two Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions (Nos. 37 and 42 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of a trademark registered in the name of Respondent No. 1, Naresh Shamani Trading as Jadugar Chemicals. The Respondent did not appear despite service attempts, with physical service having returned undelivered though email service was effected. The Court granted the Petitioner liberty to effect private service on the Registrant within two weeks and adjourned the matter to October 23, 2026 for directions.
Ms. Aaradhya Bachchan And Anr v.Bollywood Time & Ors
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a set of connected commercial suits involving Bollywood celebrities seeking protection of their personality and publicity rights. The order records that the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 868/2026 (Janhvi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.) has concluded submissions, while the amicus curiae in CS(COMM) 105/2026 (Vivek Anand Oberoi vs Collector Bazar & Ors.) has handed up extracts from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The matter was re-notified for further hearing on 9th October 2026.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. v.Sanskar Singhaniya & Ors.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Sanskar Singhaniya and others for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendants' use of 'THE BHARAT EXPRESS' mark and the domain 'thebharatexpress.com', along with a similar 'flame-of-hope' logo, infringed the plaintiff's registered trademarks. The defendants, despite being served, failed to appear and through a communication dated 11 September 2026, informed the plaintiff that they did not intend to contest the matter and had adopted a new name and logo. The Bombay High Court decreed the suit in terms of the relevant prayer clauses, granting permanent injunctive relief against the defendants.