IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 18 of 50 · 1,474 total
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
ORDER
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
Rajnath And 11 Others v.State Of U.P. And Another
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging illegal encroachment upon Banjar (Gram Sabha) land. The Allahabad High Court held that the P.D.P.P. Act was enacted to curb vandalism and damage to public property during riots and public commotion, and cannot be invoked for cases of alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land. The court quashed the criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance order, and non-bailable warrant, observing that the proper remedy lies under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
Basamma & Anr. v.Goparappa And Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court of Karnataka's judgment that had set aside Paragraph 24 of the First Appellate Court's order. The Court held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by adjudicating the writ petition without hearing the appellants, who were necessary parties whose ownership and possession rights were directly affected. The First Appellate Court's judgment dated 02.08.2021 was restored, with the Court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits and granting respondents three months to pursue alternative remedies.
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerns EP 3 777 595 B1 and addresses whether the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP), and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) should be disregarded for lacking an electronic signature under Rule 4.1 RoP. The Court granted a retroactive extension of time to 13 July 2026, when the Claimant submitted signed versions of these documents, while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026.
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
ORDER
Siemens Healthineers AG and Others v.Hologic, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Siemens Healthineers AG and related entities for suspensive effect of their appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf, which had found infringement of EP 2 352 431 and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for revocation. The appellants argued that the impugned decision contained manifest errors in interpreting claim feature 4.1 and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that no manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights had been demonstrated on summary examination, and therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A., and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural Order
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) sought protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but denied protection for customer names and customer information, which were found to be publicly available.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns Brita SE's application for renewed coercive monetary penalties against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order of the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure about infringing water filter cartridge devices and had continued advertising the infringing products online. The court imposed additional fines totaling 202,500 EUR and threatened further escalating daily penalties of 2,000 EUR for any continued non-compliance.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses disputes over court fees payable on five related appeals arising from infringement and counterclaim-for-revocation proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court dismissed Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of overpaid fees in one appeal and ordered NST to pay outstanding fees in three other appeals where NST had underpaid by unilaterally halving the value of the action. The court held that fees must be calculated based on the value determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties cannot unilaterally amend that value for fee purposes.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
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.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G
ORDER
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. v.& Bird
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu
DECISION
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.
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.