IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 50 · 1,474 total
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 The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
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.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenging the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986, a corrigendum thereto dated 5 April 2017, and a subsequent notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning their land at Kurla, Mumbai. The court found that the acquisition process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the award and corrigendum void. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894, and publish a fresh award within three months.
Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited
The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
DECISION
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
DECISION
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
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.
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of deadlines for filing statements of defence. Cardo Systems had filed an infringement action against Ziwu and Resosport, but while service on Ziwu was completed, service on Resosport in Hong Kong remained pending. Ziwu applied to align the deadlines, and the Court granted the request, setting a common starting date of 10 June 2026 for both defendants, with a new filing deadline of 10 September 2026.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
Ordonnance
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
DECISION
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Decision
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A.
order
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This is a procedural order of the UPC Local Division The Hague concerning a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026. The panel reviewed whether a counterclaim for rate-setting filed by the Acer defendants against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. (which had intervened in support of claimant Dolby International AB) should be declared inadmissible. The panel denied the review, confirming the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible, and alternatively added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby, while granting leave to appeal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and University-Industry Cooperation Foundation of Korea Aerospace University v.Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others
Procedural order of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court staying proceedings in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties, comprising ETRI and Korea Aerospace University as claimants and multiple Meta entities as defendants, jointly requested a stay because they had reached an amicable solution in out-of-court negotiations requiring further implementation. The Court granted the stay and ordered the parties to either withdraw their actions or update the Court by 10 August 2026.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 that accepted a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. The panel denied the review sought by claimant Dolby and intervener Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may be subject to a counterclaim. The court further added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby in the alternative, and granted leave to appeal.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the court fees payable for AIM's appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division disposing of a provisional measures application. The Court held that the appeal fee of EUR 20,400 paid by AIM was both necessary and sufficient, classifying the appeal as one under R. 220.1(a) RoP pursuant to R. 363.2 RoP. AIM was also invited to clarify why Respondent 6 (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) was included in the appeal proceedings concerning the PI case.
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.