IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 50 · 1,474 total
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
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)
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte
Procedural Order
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Provisional measures
Dev Raj v.Puran Chand
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Trial Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹2,65,000/- towards discharge of liability arising from the purchase of a bus, which was dishonoured. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's own statements created doubt about the cheque being issued for consideration, and the Trial Court had taken a reasonable view warranting no interference.
M.Padmini v.The District Revenue Officer
This is a review application filed by M.Padmini seeking to reconsider the Madras High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018, which had upheld the Revenue Authority's direction requiring parties to establish their competing title claims before a competent civil court. The dispute concerned ownership of 9,795 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 46/1 of Pammal Village, with the applicant relying on a 1968 sale deed and a 1977 compromise decree, while private respondents asserted title through subsequent transactions. The Division Bench dismissed the review application as devoid of merit, holding that the grounds raised fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
Ashish Sharma v.State of H.P. and Ors.
The petitioner, a computer teacher at Dayanand Public School, Shimla, sought quashing of orders dismissing his complaint seeking registration of an FIR against the school principal for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner alleged that the principal was not authorized to sign his suspension order under CBSE affiliation by-laws, rendering it a forged document. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an order signed by a person lacking authority does not constitute forgery under Section 464 IPC, and such an order must be treated as valid unless set aside by a competent court.
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. v.Oshma Aeronautics
The plaintiff, Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Oshma Aeronautics, for a Main Rotor Blade of Helicopter VT-ATA valued at Rs.17,50,000/-, paying a 60% advance of Rs.10,50,000/- via RTGS. The defendant failed to deliver the product and issued multiple cheques towards refund, all of which were dishonoured. The defendant did not file a written statement, and the court, relying on Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, decreed the suit for Rs.5,70,000/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. (reduced from the claimed 24% p.a.) from the date of filing till realization, plus costs.
Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.
This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier
Decision
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain
This was an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action against European patent EP 4 082 804 owned by Fujifilm. After Kodak filed a revocation action at the Central Division Paris, Fujifilm surrendered the patent to the EPO and requested disposal of the action, but the first instance court ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the cost decision and ordered Kodak to bear the costs at both instances, finding that Kodak had unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings without first giving Fujifilm an opportunity to surrender the patent.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
Appeal
B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura
The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
Om Prakash Rathore v.Smt. Laxmi Devi
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order directing eviction of the petitioners from 67.89 square meters of land in Survey No. 211, Village Moja Jhingura, Shivpuri. The Court held that summary proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could not be invoked to evict persons in long, open, and settled possession of a permanent residential structure, and that a subsequent demarcation could not revive a remedy already barred by the two-year limitation period.
Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery
This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 296159 from the Register of Patents under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing certain certificates and affidavits, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared on advance copy and accepted notice, with directions to file replies within six weeks.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court relied on its earlier judgment holding that CIDCO is covered by the exclusionary clauses of Section 16 of the EPF Act, and accordingly allowed the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This case concerns an application for the correction of the Statement of Appeal and the register in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. AIM Sport Development AG had filed an appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division dismissing its infringement action and provisional measures application against multiple TGI entities, but mistakenly included TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a respondent. The Court found this to be an obvious error and ordered the deletion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the Statement of Appeal and from the register.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V (Benelux), and Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP2304723. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP directing a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements to support its response to the Defendants' FRAND defense. With the unanimous consent of the Defendants and the third party, the Court granted the production request subject to a strict 'Highly Confidential Information' confidentiality regime.
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.