IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 34 · 1,011 total
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns requests for confidentiality and a potential change of the language of proceedings in an appeal between Fives ECL and REEL GmbH regarding patent EP 1 740 740. The first instance Local Division Hamburg had dismissed Fives' infringement claim for damages on February 11, 2026, finding that Fives failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the required causal link. Fives appealed and filed a confidentiality request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal addressed the inclusion of a former employee in the confidentiality circle, the continuation of the first instance confidentiality order during appeal proceedings, and the possibility of filing submissions in English.
Kamal Mahanty v.Jhantu Mohapatra
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Kamal Mahanty seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from Complaint Case No. C-323 of 2016 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur. The court held that a prima facie case was made out based on the presentation of the cheque, its return with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by Drawer,' and the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice. The petitioner's contentions regarding limitation, contractual defenses, and the alleged absence of a money-lending license were rejected as triable issues of fact.
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi v.Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
The petitioner, a temple/trust entity, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that set aside the Rent Authority's order allowing its impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The petitioner had sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC to dispute the landlord's title over the premises. The Court held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are confined to adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and cannot be expanded to adjudicate complex title questions, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
M/S Bansal Construction Co. v.Union of India
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a District Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award in favor of M/S Bansal Construction Co. The appellant had been awarded a railway contract in 2004 for CTR of 15.75 km of non-circulated yard lines, which could not be completed due to the respondent's failure to provide P-Way materials. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed 7 out of 8 claims and awarded ₹22,44,464/-, but the Commercial Court set aside the award holding that pendente lite interest could not be granted as the contract expressly prohibited it. The Delhi High Court upheld the District Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_BA52E97E61, Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA appeared in dispute with InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (hereinafter referred to as: “Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_C4717FD4F5, Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany appeared in dispute with Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.Respondent
This is a procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning patent infringement action UPC_CFI_1963/2025 (with related case UPC_CFI_1247/2026). Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage, holder of EP4144599, sought to limit its infringement claims against six Bosch group entities by excluding certain APX-series products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (BOSCH PRODUKTIE). The judge-rapporteur authorized the
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_516F9F2DAB, Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH appeared in dispute with (1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
CA, Inc., gesetzlich vertreten durch das Board of Directors,, fornia 95131, USA v.Deutsche Telekom AG, vertreten durch ihren Vorstand, Friedri, T-Systems International GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsf
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure in an infringement dispute regarding European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but rejected protection for customer names and customer-related information on the ground that such information was already publicly available. The preliminary order of June 17, 2026 was partially lifted to the extent it had covered customer information.
Düsseldorf, insbesondere Rechtsanwalt Oliver v.Respondent
This case concerns renewed coercive measures against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1, which relates to water filter devices with cartridges. Despite prior penalty orders, the defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure of sales information and allegedly continued to advertise the infringing products on websites targeting European markets. The Local Division Hamburg found the claimant's application for further penalties successful.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_B850B9DE31, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States appeared in dispute with Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dr. Kavitha.A v.Brincy Mani
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in a transfer dispute within the Dairy Development Department. The 1st respondent, Brincy Mani, a Deputy Director posted at Thrissur, had challenged her transfer to Kozhikode as Principal of the Dairy Training Centre, alleging mala fides and political motivation. The petitioner, Dr. Kavitha.A, who was to be transferred to Thrissur under the same order, sought to vacate the Tribunal's interim order. The Tribunal disposed of the original application, and Dr. Kavitha.A approached the High Court challenging that order.
Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,78,355/- from the defendant, M/s. Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd., for part work allegedly executed under a work order dated 15.12.2020 relating to desilting operations on sewer lines and storm drains at Najafgarh, Delhi (DMRC Contract CC 126A). The defendant contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work without valid cause, that the invoice was forged with inflated rates, and that the agreed 20% discount was not applied. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove actual execution, measurement, and certification of the work, and that the invoice did not match the rates specified in the work order, dismissing the suit.
M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd v.Sandeep Kumar And Others
M/S Hero Motorcorp Limited filed a civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Labour Court, Gurugram, which declined to reject a second affidavit by way of examination-in-chief tendered by the workman-respondent in an industrial dispute regarding his termination. The petitioner contended that the affidavit contained averments beyond the pleadings and legal submissions, and that the Labour Court had committed a jurisdictional error by permitting it on record after rejecting an earlier affidavit on similar grounds. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was purely interlocutory and did not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction, as no patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice was demonstrated.
M/s Triveni Adhesive and Tapes and 2 others v.The New India Assurance Company Limited
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award in an insurance dispute. The appellants, a partnership firm manufacturing adhesive tapes, suffered total destruction of their manufacturing unit due to a fire on 02.09.2018 and claimed Rs. 3,76,00,000/- under two insurance policies with the respondent. The Arbitrator awarded an additional Rs. 1,56,68,498/- with interest, but the Commercial Court set aside the award for patent illegality and being against public policy. The Allahabad High Court dismissed both the appeal and the appellants' application under Section 34(4) seeking remand, holding that the award lacked findings on contentious issues rather than merely lacking reasons, and therefore the discretionary power under Section 34(4) could not be exercised.
Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
Roja v.Elumalai
This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Clemens Tobias Steins, Patentanwalt und Eur v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dirk Jestaedt, Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mb
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. Before the written procedure was completed, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, following out-of-court settlement discussions. The court allowed the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute from EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 9,500.00.
1) Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., No. 26 Xianghai Road, Yangkou, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, CN v.& Bird, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before The Hague Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-14) under reference UPC_CFFF9CFE8F, 1) Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., No. 26 Xianghai Road, Yangkou, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, CN appeared in dispute with & Bird, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
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.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
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.
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v.Central Bureau of Investigation
This criminal appeal was filed by K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi challenging his conviction and five-year sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow in Case No. 12 of 1998 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The primary issue before the Court was procedural—whether the trial court was obligated to send its original record rather than merely a certified copy, as required by Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Court directed the trial court to forward its original record and listed the appeal for hearing on 17.08.2026.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) with respect to land at Kurla, Mumbai, originally notified for acquisition for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that their land was not included in the original 1986 award, and the SLAO's attempt to include it through a corrigendum after 31 years was without legal authority. The Bombay High Court held the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be illegal and void, directing the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894 within three months.
Zarina Dada And Others v.The State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.
This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
This is an order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 552/2024) before the Delhi High Court concerning an application (I.A. 4622/2025) filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Opella Healthcare Group, submitted that the Defendant's principal line of defence—its trademark and copyright registrations in the label mark and artistic work of PHENSERYL—had been cancelled by the Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9/2024. The Defendant did not appear, and the Court deferred adverse orders, listing the matter for 20.07.2026 with a warning that if the Defendant remained unrepresented, the Court would proceed to hear the summary judgment application.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.