IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 2 of 34 · 1,011 total
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant IAGON LTD provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that they had not presented in a sufficiently credible manner that an order for security for costs was appropriate based on either Iagon's financial position or the alleged undue burden of enforcement.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
Naman Agarwal (Proprietor of MS Radhe Radhe) v.M/S Ferns N Petals Pvt Ltd & Anr.
The Petitioner, a franchisee of Respondent No. 1 since 2022, filed a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator for disputes arising out of four composite agreements dated 20.08.2025 relating to a franchise outlet at Bhubaneshwar, Odisha. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents supplied defective equipment, restricted sales, suspended the outlet from its e-commerce platform, and failed to ensure adequate supply of requisite material. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and listed the matter for further proceedings on 30.09.2026.
Kitty Industries Private Limited v.Kumar Audyogik Vikas Private Limited
This is an interim order in a commercial suit concerning alleged infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark 'KITTY'. The defendant, who claims to hold a registered copyright in 'KITTI' and a registered trademark in 'KITTIKA', raised objections including that the plaintiff does not manufacture noodles and that the Delhi High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff contended that cause of action arose within Delhi because the defendant's product was ordered online. The defendant was granted leave to file an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC for return of the plaint.
Nobel Hygiene Limited v.Corona Remedies Limited
This appeal challenged an ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 18.08.2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-02), Saket Courts, New Delhi, in CS (COMM.) 443/2026, restraining Nobel Hygiene Limited from using the trademark 'B-FIT/B-Fit' in relation to pharmaceuticals and related goods claimed by Corona Remedies Limited. The appellant contended that the injunction was granted arbitrarily without being heard, despite evidence of its long-standing use of the 'B-FIT' mark since 01.04.2014. The Delhi High Court suspended the impugned order, directed the appellant to file its reply to the injunction application within one week, and remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh hearing.
Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
This is an intra-court appeal before the Delhi High Court arising from a trade mark proceeding. The appellant, Jetharam Nemaram Gehlot, challenged the appointment of the Hearing Officer who heard his trade mark application, contending that the officer was not duly appointed as required under Section 3(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Court allowed the condonation of approximately 206 days' delay by Respondent No. 1 in filing an affidavit of compliance, took the affidavit on record, and adjourned the matter to 15 December 2026 for further hearing.
Zee Learn Limited v.Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust
Zee Learn Limited filed a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief against Pragati Shiksha Shrot Trust for continued use of its registered trademarks 'MOUNT LITERA ZEE SCHOOL' and proprietary MLZS Program after termination of their licensing agreements. The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the Petitioner regarding the termination and granted partial relief, restraining the Respondent from using the trademarks and proprietary programme and directing disclosure of financial records. However, the Court rejected prayers for revival of the contractual relationship, a bank guarantee of Rs.48,39,440.76/-, and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd
Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
KRBL Limited v.LT Foods Limited & Anr.
KRBL Limited filed six connected petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking removal/cancellation of trademark registrations held by LT Foods Limited. The impugned marks included 'WORLD'S 1ST BIRYANI DAY', 'WORLD BIRYANI DAY', and 'WORLD'S BIRYANI DAY' registered in Classes 35 and 41. The Court allowed the exemption applications and issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 23.09.2026.
Pstgems Private Limited v.Ronit Kumar Trading As M/S Pliza Gems & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dealt with two interlocutory applications in a commercial suit. Defendant No.6 sought condonation of a 72-day delay in filing its written statement, while the plaintiff sought leave to bring on record Legal Proceeding Certificates pertaining to its trademarks. The Court granted the plaintiff time to file a reply to the condonation application and issued notice on the plaintiff's application, with both matters re-notified before the Joint Registrar on 11 September 2026.
Awl Agri Business Limited & Anr v.Union Of India & Ors
AWL Agri Business Limited filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a show cause notice dated 17.07.2026 and an accompanying letter issued by food safety authorities, which effectively treated its product 'Fortune Soya Health Refined Soyabean Oil' as a 'non-compliant product' under the Food Safety and Standards (Advertising and Claims) Regulations, 2018 and the Labelling Regulations, 2020. The petitioner contended that enforcement actions, including stoppage of sale orders in Jharkhand, were taken without following the procedure under the FSS Act or affording an effective hearing. The court addressed the preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that since the impugned communications were issued by authorities situated in Delhi, a part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
State v.Sumit Verma
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 191/2019 registered at PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi, based on a complaint by Sh. Suresh Kaushik, an employee of MS Protect IP Solutions LLP, alleging that a raid at the house of accused Sumit Verma revealed a Dell computer, pen-drive, and bar code printer containing counterfeit MRP stickers of HAL and TMC companies, leading to charges under Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, who was the most material witness, turned hostile and failed to identify the accused, causing the prosecution's case to collapse. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Kind Patches Limited
Mankind Pharma Limited filed a commercial suit against Kind Patches Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from using the trademarks/trade name 'KIND PATCHES'/'KINDPATCHES PRIVATE LIMITED' or any marks identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered 'KIND'/'MANKIND' trademarks and KIND formative marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties were referred to mediation and amicably settled their disputes by executing a Settlement Agreement dated 24.08.2026. The suit was decreed in terms of the settlement, with the Defendant agreeing to withdraw its trademark applications, and the Plaintiff was held entitled to a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
Fujifilm Corporation filed an application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the Court of Appeal's decision of 2 June 2026, which had set aside the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of the defence of private prior use and dismissed the infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm also requested that the application for rehearing be granted suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for suspensive effect, holding that under Art. 81(2) UPCA and R. 252 RoP, applications for rehearing do not have suspensive effect as a general rule, and that Fujifilm had failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular prejudice justifying a departure from that principle.
Frimline Pvt. Ltd. v.Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Plaintiff, Frimline Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its patent No. IN'547960. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2026, while Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit acknowledging the patent's validity and undertaking not to use the product under the mark PALMOVA or any identical composition. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement and the undertaking, while preserving Defendant No. 2's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and Ors
Natco Pharma Limited filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 to the extent of claim 12 against FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and others. The matter was received on transfer from another court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition as the inter se disputes between the parties had been amicably settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 31.03.2026. The petition along with pending applications was disposed of as withdrawn.
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr
Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 298645 against Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr. The respondent's counsel pointed out technical errors in the petition, including the name of Respondent No. 1. Confronted with these errors, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty in accordance with law.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
State v.Rahul Arora
This criminal case arose from FIR No. 645/2021 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, Delhi, alleging that accused Rahul Arora and Vikas Yadav were dealing in counterfeit products bearing falsified marks of M/s Luk Products and Schaeffler KG, in violation of Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The complainant, Sh. Ajit Kumar (employee of EIPR India Pvt. Ltd.), turned hostile during trial and failed to identify the accused persons, and the case property was destroyed in a fire near PS Kashmere Gate on 31.05.2026. The Delhi District Court acquitted both accused persons, holding that the prosecution's foundational pillars had collapsed and that no admissible evidence established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. relating to a juice extraction module for a juicer. The Local Division had revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent's claims as amended and dismissed all of Hurom's infringement claims against NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hurom's appeal against the revocation as unfounded (for the New Main Request) and inadmissible (for the New Auxiliary Requests), and dismissed its appeal against the dismissal of infringement claims as unfounded. The cross-appeal by NUC and WARMCOOK was partly dismissed as inadmissible and partly as unfounded, with Hurom ordered to pay costs including an interim award of €100,000.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited
This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. v.The Additional Commissioner, HQ Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST & CX, Kolkata South Commissionerate & Ors.
M/s. Cart Infralog Ltd. & Anr. filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 11.06.2025 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the consequential Order in Original dated 09.12.2025, alleging ineligible and irregular Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately Rs. 2.37 crores with total interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 6.3 crores. The petitioners contended that the defaulting supplier (M/s. Aster Trading Company) who failed to file GSTR-3B should be held liable, not the purchasing dealer, relying on the Division Bench decision in Suncraft Energy Pvt. Ltd. (affirmed by the Supreme Court on 14.12.2023). The Court quashed the Order in Original and the recovery notice, directed reconsideration of the matter in light of the cited precedents, and required the petitioners to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- as a condition for remand.
Mr Vinod Kapur v.The State Of Karnataka
The petitioner, Mr. Vinod Kapur, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR in Crime No. 5/2022 registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for offences under Sections 420, 193, 463, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC, arising from a dispute over a Will dated 09.09.2005 executed by the petitioner's father. During the pendency of the petition, the parties—siblings—reached a comprehensive settlement before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, in Company Petition No. 43/BB/2021, which was disposed of as settled on 21.04.2026. The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, holding that continuation would be futile given the settlement.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
This appeal concerned an order of the Court of First Instance (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application by Avient Protective Materials B.V. for the production of evidence to substantiate alleged infringement of EP 2 791 402, a patent relating to UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The judge-rapporteur had ordered production of two J300 UD fabric variants (30 kg each) and English-language versions of the appellants' company introduction video, but rejected requests for internal test reports and additional fabric variants. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error in the lower court's assessment of necessity and proportionality, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. & Others
Aesculap AG sued Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following an oral hearing on June 17, 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and declared the proceedings terminated between those parties, while the case continues against defendant 2.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
iCAT Corporation brought a patent infringement action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants filed a preliminary objection under R.19 RoP arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of financial compensation to acts occurring after 11 June 2021. The court dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible, holding that it concerned the scope of relief rather than the court's jurisdiction or competence.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed procedural disputes between claimant SYPOX GmbH and defendant Topsoe A/S. The central issues were whether SYPOX qualified as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) for reduced court fees, the appropriate value of the proceedings, whether the ceiling for recoverable costs should be lowered, and whether SYPOX should provide security for costs. The court ruled that SYPOX qualifies as an SME, set the provisional value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected the request to lower the recoverable costs ceiling, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
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.