IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 46 of 50 · 1,474 total
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 and involves a dispute between Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. (applicant) and Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH (respondents). The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the respondents' trade fair stand at 'Aquanale Köln' on October 30, 2025. After initially indicating they would seek review of that order, the respondents withdrew that intention and instead requested the appointment of a supplementary expert opinion and the release of the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert.
Google LLC et al. v.HEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that claims 1‑17, 19, 21‑27, 29 and 30 of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent are unpatentable. Google and Samsung successfully proved obviousness over the MMS 3GPP spec and the Ogawa encryption device.
Strategy Inc v.Web3AI Technologies, LLC
Strategy Inc (formerly MicroStrategy) has filed an IPR petition challenging all 25 claims of Web3AI's U.S. Patent 9,218,574 covering a user interface for machine‑learning results. The challenger alleges obviousness over a combination of four prior‑art references (Johnson, Lin, Purcell, Mihaylov) under § 103. No institution decision has been made yet.
Tesla, Inc. v.Bulletproof Property Management, LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of its vehicle gear‑selection patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of the review and a finding that the claims are unpatentable.
P V Anand Kishore v.M/S Bhatt Electronics (P) Ltd.
This appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenged an order that held M/S Bhatt Electronics liable to pay Rs. 3,00,000 in damages for infringing registered designs and trademarks related to emergency lights. The original suit was filed under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and Designs Act. While the appellant argued that the plaintiff failed to provide direct evidence of manufacturing or sales linking them to the infringement, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding. The court concluded that since there was no denial by the defendant regarding the sale of the product, the liability for damages could be inferred from the facts and circumstances.
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd v.The Asst Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd appealed the Assistant Controller's decision refusing its divisional patent application for 'PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS OF PEMETREXED'. The refusal was based on the prior refusal of the mother application. However, since the mother application was subsequently granted, the High Court found the reason for refusal no longer tenable.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The suit was filed alleging infringement of Patent No. 269841 (IN'841) by Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd regarding the compound Ruxolitinib. After discussions, the Defendant provided an undertaking that they would not commercialize the patented compound during the patent's validity. The court accepted this undertaking and disposed of the suit on consent terms.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
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.
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.