IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 31 of 34 · 1,011 total
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant, Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc., challenged a rejection order issued by The Controller of Patents. The court heard preliminary submissions regarding whether the sufficiency of disclosure under Section 10(4) was complied with and if the rejection order lacked adequate reasons.
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Gloster Limited (SRA) v.Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.
The Supreme Court addressed a complex dispute regarding the ownership and status of the trademark 'Gloster' within the context of insolvency proceedings (IBC). The core issue was whether the trademark, which had been assigned to Gloster Cables Limited (GCL), remained an asset of the Corporate Debtor. The Court ultimately set aside the Adjudicating Authority’s finding that the trademark belonged to the Corporate Debtor, but clarified that this ruling did not definitively resolve the underlying title dispute between the parties. This judgment highlights the limitations of insolvency forums in adjudicating complex intellectual property ownership claims.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE DE PROCEDURE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 21 janvier 2026 APPELANTE ET DEMANDERESSE A L’ACTION EN CONTREFAÇON DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE INSTANCE VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY CEDEX, FRANCE (ci-après dé
Symrise Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Symrise Ag filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 202117041016) for 'An Antimicrobial Mixture', holding that it was not patentable under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner submitted that a third-party post grant opposition had led to the revocation of the patent held by the respondents under Section 25(2) read with Section 25(4) of the Patent Act, 1970. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition as infructuous.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited, filed an affidavit seeking leave from the Delhi High Court to amend its claims in a patent application. The company asserted that the amendments were lawful, bona fide, and did not broaden the original disclosure, but merely provided clarification.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Uvw Extruder
Steer Engineering Private Limited appealed against a commercial court order that dismissed its application for temporary injunction. The dispute centered on the alleged infringement of Patent No. 318271, titled 'Stress Concentration Free Spline Profile', which protects components used in Twin Screw Extruders. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted an interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing the patent during the pendency of the suit.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl,
Nagravision Sàrl filed an infringement action against Pinterest entities based on EP 3965466. The Pinterest defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the domiciliation of the parties and the need for efficient coordination among multiple defendants. The order addressed the application for language change and the question of whether existing pleadings and documents should be translated.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of U.S. Patent 12,338,71, asserting that the vehicle gear‑selection and unparking features are obvious over Joos and its combinations with Bettger, Kischkat, and Hoop. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §103.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Dr. Dulal Kumar De v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his patent application for 'Herbal Anti-Venom against Catfish Sting' on grounds of abandonment. The core dispute revolved around whether the service of the First Examination Report (FER) via email, rather than registered post, invalidated the time limits under the Patents Act, 1970.
Karan Rathore v.Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr.
Karan Rathore appealed a decision by the Registrar of Trade Marks that dismissed his opposition against the registration of the mark 'JBR'. The dispute centered on whether 'JBR' was likely to cause confusion with Karan Rathore's pre-existing device mark used for motor parts and automotive accessories. The court allowed the appeal, finding that both marks were identical and the goods were similar enough to warrant refusal.
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Hirotsu Bio Science Inc appealed the rejection of its patent application for a cancer detection method using nematode olfaction. The Appellant argued that the invention was merely a detection method (in vitro) and not a diagnosis, despite descriptive language in the specification. However, the High Court upheld the original order, finding that the claimed method functioned as a diagnostic method under Section 3(i) of the Act.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.1) Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., c/ Larrano 7, San Lorenzo de El Escorial
The Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court issued an order regarding a reimbursement request filed by the Claimant after the closure of infringement proceedings. The court declared the request for reimbursement of 60% of court fees inadmissible, finding that the case had been closed, no request for reopening had been filed, the claimant had forfeited its right by stating no cost decision was needed, and the application was filed almost two months after closure. Leave to appeal was
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,974,910 clot‑treatment patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple obviousness grounds.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s embolism‑treatment patent after finding Imperative Care’s obviousness arguments sufficiently persuasive. All 36 challenged claims are now under review.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care seeks to invalidate nine claims of Inari Medical’s 11,697,012 hemostasis valve patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,554,005 patent covering intravascular embolism treatment devices after finding Imperative Care’s likelihood of success on at least one claim. The decision centers on claim constructions of the “filament” element and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care secured an institution of inter partes review against Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent covering claims 1‑9. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness grounds involving Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller references.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
The USPTO denied Imperative Care’s petition for inter partes review of Inari Medical’s ‘580 patent, finding no reasonable likelihood of prevailing under § 314(a).
Imperative Care, Inc. v.Inari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Inari Medical’s 12,239,333 patent covering clot‑removal devices. The petition relies on multiple prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
DraftKings Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
DraftKings has filed a petition to invalidate multiple claims of WinView’s ’189 fantasy‑sports patent, asserting that the invention is anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition requests cancellation of 16 claims under §§102 and 103.
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.