IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 16 of 50 · 1,474 total
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 199 RoP) filed by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer, against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The applicant sought to inspect a tap-changer exhibited by the respondent at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. Following an ex parte order on May 20, 2026, the Local Chamber Munich modified the order on July 27, 2026 to refine confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication with the appointed expert.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action for European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute centered on whether SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or micro enterprise (SME), with the parties disagreeing over the relevance of an Investment Agreement. SYPOX withdrew the unredacted version of the Investment Agreement and relied only on the redacted version, and the court dismissed Topsoe's requests for access to the unredacted document.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH & Others (Akteneinsicht)
A member of the public (a patent attorney) sought access to the case files of a concluded UPC infringement action between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber partially granted the request, allowing access to the complaint and most exhibits while excluding confidential out-of-court correspondence and requiring redaction of personal data and a confidentiality undertaking.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 079 153. The Claimant, Dolby International AB, informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement signed on 17 July 2026, and both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the stay with immediate effect pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP, and indicated its intention to cancel the oral hearing scheduled for 8 April 2027.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. In this decision dated July 27, 2026, the court modified the original order regarding confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication between the applicant and the appointed expert.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. Following the respondent's review application and an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, the court modified the confidentiality provisions of the original order, supplemented it based on the parties' joint declarations, and rejected further requests.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer (Laststufenschalter), for an inspection and evidence preservation order under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court initially granted an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026, and following an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, issued a modified order on July 27, 2026 adjusting the confidentiality provisions and the mechanism for access to the expert's report.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This case management order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the reimbursement of overpaid appeal court fees. WEPA had appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague confirming a preservation of evidence order and paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees, but argued the correct fee was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the fixed fee under Rule 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR with no additional value-based fee, and ordered the Registry to reimburse 9,600 EUR.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. v.Dolby International AB (EP 3 605 534)
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, sought access to the court file of concluded main proceedings (UPC_CFI_226/2024) between Dolby International AB and Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing access to the statement of claim with specified paragraphs and personal data redacted, while excluding the annexes.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem
ORDER
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Disney entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoding and decoding. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found that Disney had infringed the patent by offering and placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in several Contracting Member States. The court dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation and issued injunctive relief, recall and removal orders, and information/accounting orders, while apportioning costs 90% to the Defendants and 10% to the Claimant.
TVS Motor Company Limited v.Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
TVS Motor Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers, filed a commercial suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against Ram Chandra Maurya and others who had been issuing cease-and-desist notices alleging copyright infringement based on two copyright registrations for literary works titled 'Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law' and 'Motion's Sixth Law'. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendants had been unsuccessful in proving copyright violation before the Copyright Authority and up to the Supreme Court, and that patent applications for the same subject matter had been abandoned. The Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing such threats.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent under Application No. 202227024750. The Court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled copy of the Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the respondent, who accepted notice through counsel, with directions to file reply within six weeks and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order dated 30.06.2023 refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 titled 'Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a B Raf Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor' on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning on inventive step, Section 3(d), Section 3(i), and Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) to be deficient and lacking in proper analysis. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Controller for de novo reconsideration, with directions to dispose of the application within six months and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 294/2026) before the Delhi High Court challenged a Single Judge's judgment dated 09.02.2026 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, which had directed variation of the trademark 'AiC ARUN' (Registration No. 1524226) registered in favor of Respondent No. 1 by deleting the word 'ARUN' under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. In the LPA, the appellant sought permission to dispose of its existing stock of goods, spare parts, and packing material bearing the mark 'AIC Arun', valued at approximately Rs. 8,50,000/-, within six months. With consent from both parties, the court permitted disposal of the stock on or before 31.01.2027 and directed the appellant to file a statement of disposal by 07.02.2027.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed Original Applications seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing its registered Patent No.IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The dispute concerned an allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at the premises of the second defendant in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The Court extended the previously granted interim order until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent revocation petition filed by Asustek Computer Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent No. 387206 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a Commercial IP Suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and another against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The Plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the Defendants sold a competing product called 'Apex Pickle Container'. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed during the hearing, with the Defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining it from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the impugned trade dress, artwork, or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' products.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This case before the UPC Local Division of Milan concerns patent infringement claims by Prinoth against Xelom regarding European patents EP 2507436 and EP 1995159, both relating to snow groomer (battipista) technology. Following an ex parte evidence preservation order executed in April 2025, Prinoth sought additional evidence including document production, physical inspection, and judicial experiments to prove infringement. The Judge Rapporteur granted the request for physical inspection and wei
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 restraining the Appellant from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The Appellant contended that the Respondent suppressed material facts, namely 45 GST paid tax invoices evidencing use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no suppression of material facts and that the Appellant's earlier trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' had already been refused by the Registrar on 29.07.2024 on grounds of conflict with the Respondent's mark and lack of bona fide adoption.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a commercial IP suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and Anr against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the defendants sold a competing 'Apex Pickle Container' with allegedly similar trade dress and packaging. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed on the date of hearing, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the impugned product.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
This trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed by SAPAT International Private Limited against NIRAVI Consumer LLP and related defendants, alleging that the defendants' use of the mark 'SAPAT' on tea products and at retail outlets constituted infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark in Class 30 and passing off. The defendants, partnership firms involving Ritu Nikhil Joshi and Nikhil Joshi (a director of the plaintiff company), marketed tea under the brand 'NIRAVI' while displaying 'SAPAT' on signages and hoardings. The Bombay High Court found that the defendants' use of signages and invoices infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark, but dismissed the application alleging violation of the earlier order dated 28th January, 2025, holding that the restriction was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea.
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.