IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 13 of 50 · 1,474 total
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Asustek Computer Inc & Anr.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Asustek Computer Inc. concerning Indian Patents No. 424507 and 338105. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The court allowed the withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patents, granting liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the License Agreement is terminated or expires.
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain
This is a first appeal filed by M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563), while the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts alleging infringement. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served, as service was effected on invalid/inoperative addresses, leading the trial court to wrongly draw a presumption of service. The court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3685783, in which both parties jointly requested that certain information be classified as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 VerfO. The court granted the request, finding a legitimate interest in protecting information regarding attorney time expenditure and hourly rates from public access. The order classified specific greyed-out passages in the respondents' cost determination application and the applicant's response as confidential.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerned a reimbursement request filed by the Claimant after the withdrawal of an infringement action. The court declared the request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees inadmissible, holding that such applications cannot be filed in closed proceedings without first requesting reopening, that the Claimant had forfeited its right by informing the court no cost decision was needed, and that filing almost two months after closure was unreasonable. Leave to appeal was granted.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court suspended the cost assessment proceedings (UPC_CFI_256/2025) arising from a previously rejected ex parte application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3685783. The court set the dispute value for the interim measures proceedings at EUR 1,000,000.00 and ordered the suspension of the cost assessment until the final decision in the main infringement and revocation proceedings pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Sibio Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, United States of America
DECISION
Kanti Bhushan v.Kushal Singh
The petitioner Kanti Bhushan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I, Mandi), which had set aside the trial court's status quo order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court had improperly converted itself into a trial court and reassessed the matter without first finding that the trial court's order suffered from perversity.
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)
The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Assistant Controller Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in Indian Patent Application No. 202117018485. A separate application seeking condonation of a 9-day delay in refiling the appeal was allowed. Notice was issued to the Respondent, who accepted notice and was granted one week to file a reply, with the matter listed for hearing on 01.09.2026.
Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This matter concerns an application (GA-COM/1/2026) filed by Haw Par Corporation Limited on 5th August, 2026, seeking restoration of its earlier application (IPDATM 252 of 2023), which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. Before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division, the Court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
Haw Par Brothers International Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order of the Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Division) in an interlocutory application (IA No. GA-COM/1/2026) filed in the main proceeding IPDATM/249/2023. The petitioner, Haw Par Brothers International Limited, sought restoration of the main application, which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application, filed on 7th August, 2026, was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
M/S KRBL Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
The Plaintiff, M/S KRBL Limited, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the trademark 'ROYAL GATE' with the device of 'INDIA GATE' on the ground of passing off, since the INDIA GATE mark was unregistered at the time of filing. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff acquired registered rights in the INDIA GATE trademark (No. 599833 in Class 30) via an Assignment Deed dated 06.08.2019, and the mark was subsequently declared a well-known trademark. The Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the registration and well-known status and add a claim of infringement. The Court allowed the amendment application, subject to the Plaintiff paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, finding that the basic structure of the suit remained unchanged.
Krbl Limited v.P.K. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.
KRBL Limited filed two petitions under CM(M)-IPD 41/2026 and CM(M)-IPD 42/2026 challenging the Trial Court's order dated 01.08.2026, which had dismissed the parties' joint applications seeking a six-month extension to conclude evidence in two trademark suits filed in 2010. The Delhi High Court set aside the Trial Court's orders, granting a final six-month extension to conclude evidence, with the caveat that no further extensions would be granted.
Google LLC, Google Germany GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance regarding an application under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) requested the change, while BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) opposed it. The President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patents were granted, without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and others v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of an appeal under Rule 265 RoP. The appellants (Ericsson entities) had appealed a decision of the Lisbon Local Division that dismissed their application under Rules 360 and 361 RoP to strike out the respondent's (Shenzhen Transsion's) requests for injunctive relief in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 123 910. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, finding the requirements of Rule 265.1 RoP satisfied, and declared the proceedings closed.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a damages determination proceeding. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against three Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed European Patent No. 3 669 828 with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and related system. The order confirms the date for an oral hearing on 10 September 2026, sets deadlines for further submissions, and establishes the value of the dispute at 15 million EUR.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in footwear, filed a praecipe seeking withdrawal of the present Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh and comprehensive suit. The Plaintiff cited the inadvertent non-follow-up of earlier 2021 proceedings (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) and the need to comprehensively plead all material facts and subsequent developments as grounds for withdrawal. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Jagdev Chand (Since Deceased) Through LRs v.Gurbaksh Singh & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jagdev Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Una) which had partly allowed an appeal filed by respondent Gurbaksh Singh. The respondent had sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit concerning jointly owned land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restored the trial court's order dismissing the injunction application, holding that the appellate court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial court without recording any finding of perversity.
The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala v.Karthik Dev R
This review petition was filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (the 2nd respondent in the original writ appeal) seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2026 in W.A. No. 1550 of 2025, which dismissed its writ appeal on the ground of maintainability. The core issue was whether a quasi-judicial body, whose decision was set aside by a Single Judge in a writ petition, could maintain a writ appeal to defend its own order. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition, holding that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and that the petitioner's attempt was merely to re-agitate issues already decided on merits.
Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
State v.Manoj Kumar
The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
Metro Brands Limited, the proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' (used since 1955 in relation to footwear), sought withdrawal of its 2026 commercial IP suit against Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe and others with liberty to file a fresh suit. The plaintiff explained that an earlier 2021 suit (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) against related defendants had inadvertently not been followed up, and the material facts of those earlier proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of proceedings and reimbursement of court fees in a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157. All parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation before the closure of the written procedure, and no cost decision was requested. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and the respective counterclaimants.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation, arguing lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The UPC Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) found the patent invalid, holding that the claimed subject matter was obvious over prior art D1 in view of D3, and revoked the patent in its entirety while dismissing all infringement claims.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and others
This Unified Patent Court order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two divisional patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GSK against multiple Moderna entities. Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO Opposition Division, the Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose. The Court postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings regarding EP941, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and invited the parties to file written submissions on the impact of the EPO decisions.
Cybex GmbH v.NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted the preliminary injunction in substantial part, ordering the respondents to cease offering and supplying the accused child seat products and base system across multiple UPC member states, and to provide information on distribution channels. The court held that relying on a narrower claim set (combination of Claims 1 and 2) as the main request does not preclude preliminary measures, but refused to admit auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation regarding EP 3 849 157. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the Claimant and the two Defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation.
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.