IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 26 of 50 · 1,474 total
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1, owned by Hybridgenerator ApS, relating to a mobile hybrid generator system for delivering electrical power. The claimant, Hybridgenerator ApS, brought proceedings against HGSystem ApS, InfoTech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen (a former director of Hybridgenerator who is now associated with the defendant companies and is named as the inventor of the patent). The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds including sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that an invention is sufficiently disclosed only if the specification enables the skilled person to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope of protection.
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action against numerous entities within the Geely corporate group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, Nokia requested, with the consent of the defendants, the admission of the withdrawal of the infringement action. The defendants in turn requested, with the consent of Nokia, the withdrawal of their invalidity counterclaim, with the matter concerning the admission of the withdrawal and the reimbursement of court fees.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr v.Microsoft Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Application for provisional measures
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, against Dyson Technology Limited in connection with allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances, concerning EP3119235. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the w
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-28) under reference UPC_8B29C7AB44, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
Infringement Action
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
Infringement Action
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Application RoP262.1 (b)
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
Revocation Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
Appeal RoP220.2
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This order concerns the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1. The plaintiff Brita SE had previously obtained a decision on April 16, 2026, finding indirect infringement by the defendant Wessper Sp. z o.o.'s filter cartridges and ordering the defendant to provide structured information about its infringing products. The present order, issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as Rapporteur, addresses procedural measures under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure to safeguard confidential information during the disclosure process.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application for security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action. BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) sued multiple BYD Group entities for infringement of European Patent EP2937706 before the Paris Local Division. BYD sought security for costs in the amount of EUR 400,000, arguing that BMSI is a financially empty shell similar to a non-practicing entity, with no publicly disclosed financial information or liquid assets. BMSI countered by proposing a reduced security amount of EUR 300,000 and a seven-week timeframe for provision.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-27) under reference UPC_44EB647500, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Cybex GmbH et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
This is a procedural order (Rule 105 RoP) issued by the Rapporteur of the Central Division (Milan) in a nullity action concerning European Patent No. 2223589. The order records the outcome of a digital interim hearing held on 13 May 2026, addressing the plaintiff's representation, the value in dispute, procedural costs, and the preliminary admissibility of the nullity claim under Articles 47.6 and 73.4 EPGÜ and Rules 361–363 RoP. The court indicated it provisionally considers the action admissible and invited the parties to agree on the value in dispute and cost estimates ahead of the oral hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 778 423, owned by Grundfos Holding A/S, relating to a centrifugal pump unit, particularly a heating circulation pump unit. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of 8 May 2025 concerning infringement and a counterclaim for invalidity. The Court of Appeal addressed whether submissions concretized on appeal were new, the interpretation of patent claims in light of the prior art, and the relevance of the procedural language for claim construction.
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.