IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 34 · 1,011 total
Rajat Gupta v.The State NCT Of Delhi
Rajat Gupta filed an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi High Court in connection with FIR No. 109/2026 registered at Police Station Crime Branch for offences under Sections 318(4)/336(4)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957, relating to manufacturing and sale of counterfeit automobile spare parts bearing trademarks of reputed companies. The State opposed bail, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary as the applicant was part of an organized counterfeit syndicate. The Court observed that the only incriminating material against the applicant was the disclosure statement of his brother Harshit (who had already been granted bail) and directed the applicant to join investigation, with no further precipitative steps to be taken till the next date of hearing.
Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. v.Oberoi Realty Limited and Ors.
This interim application was filed by Defendant No.1, Oberoi Realty Limited, seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Plaintiffs' failure to exhaust mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The underlying suit was filed by Exquisite Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and flat purchasers against the developer and municipal authorities, seeking declarations regarding their undivided share in land and FSI, injunctions against ongoing construction, and conveyance of their share. The Bombay High Court rejected the application, holding that the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief due to the continuing nature of the alleged wrong, and the prayer for interim relief was not a mere camouflage to bypass the statutory mediation requirement.
Activision Publishing Inc v.Oao Info India Pvt Ltd
This entry does not constitute a judgment but rather a cause list entry from the Bombay High Court dated 21 August 2026. Two matters filed by Activision Publishing Inc against OAO Info India Pvt Ltd were listed as fresh matters (COMMP(L)/27173/2026 and COMMP(L)/27270/2026) before Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan. As per the board's header note, the petitioner was directed to issue private notice, and the matters were to be listed as post-notice matters three weeks later on 18 September 2026.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. and Others
This is a case management order issued by the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2590626 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). The order addresses the admission of new exhibits into the proceedings, including the Cayman 2024 Report and the 2021 BioNTech Website, and clarifies the scope of inventive step attacks and auxiliary requests that PBNT may rely on at the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2026.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal lodged by Windhager as inadmissible because the Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1(a) RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication is insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement does not fall within the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's subsequent application for re-establishment of rights, made during the oral hearing, was also rejected as inadmissible because the six-month time limit under Rule 320.2 RoP had already expired.
Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.
This is a patent infringement suit filed by Mold-Tek Packaging Limited against Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court, concerning alleged infringement of suit patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724. The Defendant has raised a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patents and alleged suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The court, with the consent of the parties, settled the issues for trial and directed the filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 30.09.2026.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., vertreten durch die Geschäfts, ihren Vorsitzenden Herrn Yoshinari Kitajima, 1-1-1, Ichigaya v.Zapp AG, vertreten durch den Vorstand, Dr. Stefan Seng (Vors, Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsfüh
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for an oral hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), sought court-arranged simultaneous interpretation at procedural cost, while the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (Germany), opposed that aspect. Applying a two-step test, the court found that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate but not at procedural cost, granting the plaintiff permission to hire its own interpreters under Rule 109.4 RoP who may use the courtroom's simultaneous interpretation equipment.
Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 relating to a child seat system. Cybex GmbH, the patent holder, had obtained an order finding it more likely than not that both direct and indirect patent infringement occurred. After initially indicating intent to enforce the order, Cybex declared it would not enforce the disclaimer portion of the indirect infringement ruling. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a valid waiver of enforcement could eliminate the need for legal protection regarding the suspensive effect application.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United States v.Groupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
Bekaert v.Siltronic
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation proceeding brought by Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The dispute centers on the scope of disclosure of the expert's detailed description to the applicant, particularly regarding the protection of confidential information. The Düsseldorf Local Division applied its three-step test from the prior Bekaert v. Siltronic decision, ruling on the relevance of confidential information and the redaction obligations.
Fifth Generation Inc. v.Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited & Anr.
The Supreme Court of India disposed of two transfer petitions filed by Fifth Generation Inc. (makers of Tito's Handmade Vodka) against Tito's Resorts and Hospitalities Private Limited after the parties reached a mediated settlement. The dispute concerned the use of the 'TITO'S' trademark in India across liquor and hospitality businesses. The Court recorded the settlement agreement dated 04.08.2026, which established terms for coexistence, restricted use of the mark in specific business segments, and mandated withdrawal of all pending opposition, cancellation, criminal, excise, and civil proceedings between the parties.
State v.Amar & Anr.
The State prosecuted Amar and Umesh Chand Sharma for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging they were found in possession of counterfeit Gillette foam bottles bearing falsified trademarks at shops in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The prosecution's case was primarily rooted in the testimony of the complainant, Titu Sharma, who during examination as PW-1 failed to depose as per the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused persons and the case property. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both accused persons.
Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trademarks Government of India Trademarks Registry
This is a procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal filed by Himalayan Hotels Pvt Ltd against the Registrar of Trademarks. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing on 22 September 2026, with no substantive ruling or detailed reasoning provided in the order.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.
Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.
guines, 95800 Cergy, Frankreich v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by Valeo Electrification in interim injunction proceedings against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH regarding European Patent 3 645 903. The applicant sought to restrict access to certain unredacted documents and information to a limited 'Confidentiality Club' of legal representatives and specific individuals. After the parties agreed on a circle of four persons to be included in the confidentiality club, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ruled that the request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure was admissible and substantively successful, while addressing the respondent's objections regarding the differentiation between public and party-specific confidentiality.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.
This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.
Orange SA, and other representatives of Bardehle Pagenberg v.HMD Global Oy, Orange SA
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to audio decoding under the MPEG-4 Part 3-AAC standard, sued HMD Global Oy for patent infringement regarding HMD smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or higher. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, an exhaustion objection, and a FRAND defence, and later requested that the counterclaim for revocation be made conditional on a finding of infringement. The Paris Local Division accepted the conditional counterclaim approach and examined infringement first, ultimately finding that Orange failed to prove infringement because the Claimant's demonstration relied on additional corrective information inconsistent with the technical teaching of the patent.
LS9 GmbH, Garmischer Str. 9, 81373 München v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH, Birkenstr. 22, 88285 Bodnegg-Rotheidlen
LS9 GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 (a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip) owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, arguing that LS9 GmbH, whose corporate purpose is organizing seminars and publications, was not sufficiently concerned by the patent. The Central Division (Milan) ruled that legal persons always have standing in revocation actions and dismissed the revocation action only insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of auxiliary request 1, with court costs split equally.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf found claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked inventive step but upheld it in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while claim 6 was held valid; the infringement action was dismissed on the merits. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeal consolidated the proceedings to address the cross-appeals regarding validity and infringement.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 755 901, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann Packaging A/S, the patent proprietor, brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac entities regarding 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf had partially revoked the patent, upholding claim 1 only in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while maintaining claim 6 as granted, and dismissed the infringement action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the priority claims, novelty, and inventive step issues across multiple appeal proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This case concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 465 265 before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendants (multiple Disney entities) by brief of 6 August 2026. The defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.
This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris issued an order regarding a request by the defendants (parties from Liechtenstein) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the request, holding that there is no legal basis for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, unlike for Local and Regional Divisions. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
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.