IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 34 · 1,011 total
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
AorticLab, srl, Colleretto Giacosa, TO, Italy, and patent attorneys of André Roland SA, Lausanne, Switzerla v.Emboline Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights in proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425. Emboline Inc. had filed an infringement action against AorticLab, srl, and AorticLab had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on a finding of infringement. The Local Division Munich found no infringement and did not decide on the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, re-established AorticLab's right to appeal, declared its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal admissible, and set a two-month time period for Emboline's Statement of response.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., No.88 Weilai 3rd Road, Leonard Lotz, Bird & Bird LLP, Am Sandtorkai 50, 20457 v.Micron Technology, Inc., 8000 South Federal Way Boise, Idaho, Micron Europe Ltd., Venture House 2 Arlington Square, Downsh
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047, the Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's access to confidential technical information about their Z01M die, requesting either an 'attorneys' eyes only' order or access limited to a single employee, with a five-year bar on SDRAM-related work. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the 'attorneys' eyes only' order and the five-year professional bar as disproportionate, but granted access to four named employees of the Claimant. The Court also permitted the Defendants to withdraw the Z01M die submission by 20 August 2026 to avoid potential breaches of US export control restrictions.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant (Boa Technologies Inc.) filed an Application for Permission to lodge subsequent Auxiliary Requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) under Rule 30(2) RoP in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants regarding the feature 'via a rotation of the knob (1202) in the second direction.' The Judge-Rapporteur stayed the assessment of the Application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, invited the Claimant to file an additional pleading by 21 August 2026 addressing the consequences of the CoA Decision of 13 July 2026 (FujiFilm/Kodak), and granted the Defendants an extended deadline until 28 September 2026 to submit their Rejoinder.
Yellow Sphere & Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert (EP 3 356 109)
This is a final decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary expertise, the interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, the non-mandatory nature of step ordering in process claims, the disclosure content of prior art, and the temporal applicability of the UPCA's substantive provisions to facts arising before June 1, 2023.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend its case by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6, corresponding to AR PO-3D from EPO opposition proceedings) in its infringement action against Yealink entities regarding EP 3 732 827. The application was filed on 4 August 2026 following the EPO Opposition Division's oral hearing on 17-18 June 2026, where BARCO defended the patent on the basis of newly introduced auxiliary requests not previously filed in the UPC proceedings. The Court addressed whether BARCO should be permitted to amend its case at this late stage, considering principles of procedural efficiency and the interplay between UPC and EPO proceedings.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend European Patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) in UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and related counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, that BARCO failed to abide by principles of procedural efficiency, and that BARCO did not sufficiently demonstrate the connection between the proposed changes and Yealink's specific invalidity arguments. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings involving Qualcomm. The court examined whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were admissible given the applicable 15-day time limit, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The court held that the appeals against the dismissal of the Rule 190 applications were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that the refiled Rule 190 application on appeal was inadmissible as it sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without new justifying facts.
UPC Decision UPC_AEE424C001 v.Respondent
This is an end decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles (Leitsätze) addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary knowledge, interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, order of process steps, disclosure content of prior publications, and the temporal applicability of substantive provisions of the UPCA (EPGÜ). The court clarified that the UPC's jurisdiction does not require substantive application of the UPCA, and that completed factual situations predating June 1, 2023 are governed by national law, while ongoing infringements and future remedies fall under the UPCA.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The central issues were whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were timely, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The Court held that the 15-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 224.1(b) RoP applied to orders on Rule 190 applications, that NST's appeals were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory time limit, and that the refiled Rule 190 application was inadmissible as it was substantially the same as the one already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.1) Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.,, 2) Roborock Germany GmbH,
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an infringement action brought by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against three Roborock entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device). The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation of the patent, which was made dependent on a finding of infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim, and the court allocated costs at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants.
Lepu Medical Technology (Bejing) Co., Ltd, Beijing, China v.Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by Lepu against an order of the Local Division Hamburg forfeiting penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction concerning EP 2 387 951. The Court upheld the penalty of EUR 58,800, finding that Lepu had continued to offer the attacked occlusion devices (MemoCarna ASD and VSD) via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform in contravention of the PI order, and that geo-blocking measures alone were insufficient to comply with the injunction prohibiting both offering and placing on the market.
Shinhoo Europe S.r.l. v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich section) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423. The plaintiff, Shinhoo Europe S.r.l., filed the nullity action on 3 September 2025 against Grundfos Holding A/S. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed on a cost settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the defendant to pay EUR 20,000.00 to
Vishal Aggarwal And Ors v.State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr
The petitioners sought quashment of FIR No. 336/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi, for offences under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 103/104 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, arising from allegations of selling counterfeit Raymond branded clothes. During pendency of proceedings before the JMFC, the complainant company (M/s Raymond Limited) settled the dispute through a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.08.2026, and respondent no.2 stated he did not want any action against the petitioners. The State also did not oppose the quashing, and the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
State v.Manmeet Singh Anand and Ors.
This case involved three accused persons charged under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103 and 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly dealing in counterfeit CEAT inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution failed to produce its star witness, the complainant, whose firm was found to have been non-operational for 11 years, and the Legal Manager of CEAT Ltd. who authorized the complaint also never appeared. The Court acquitted all three accused, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that continuing the trial would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Asustek Computer Inc & Anr.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Asustek Computer Inc. concerning Indian Patents No. 424507 and 338105. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The court allowed the withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patents, granting liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the License Agreement is terminated or expires.
M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain
This is a first appeal filed by M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563), while the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts alleging infringement. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served, as service was effected on invalid/inoperative addresses, leading the trial court to wrongly draw a presumption of service. The court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP application in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, a patent owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities) sought to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026, while LABS requested further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (other than paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, and granted the Defendants an opportunity to file further written pleadings.
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP dispute in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (GC Aesthetics group entities) objected under Rule 9 RoP to sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026 that addressed 'Infringement', 'Acts of Infringement', 'Jurisdiction' and 'Relief', arguing they were inadmissible. LABS countered that these sections constituted an implicit or explicit Rule 36 RoP request for further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, while allowing the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings.
Kanti Bhushan v.Kushal Singh
The petitioner Kanti Bhushan filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 24.06.2026 passed by the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge-I, Mandi), which had set aside the trial court's status quo order granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition, holding that the First Appellate Court had improperly converted itself into a trial court and reassessed the matter without first finding that the trial court's order suffered from perversity.
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited
M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)
The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
This order concerns the classification of confidential information in proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Both parties jointly requested that certain information be treated as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, classifying information regarding attorneys' hourly rates, billing details, and time expenditure as confidential and accessible only to a restricted circle of persons.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the suspension of cost determination proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783. The applicant, bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., had previously had its ex-parte application for provisional measures rejected and was ordered to bear costs, with its appeal also dismissed. The respondents sought reimbursement of their appeal costs, but the court suspended the cost determination proceedings until the final resolution of the main infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Sibio Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, United States of America, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
This is an appeal by Sibio Technology Limited against a decision of the Paris Central Division that dismissed its revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 831 283 and maintained the patent as granted. Sibio argued that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 15 extended beyond the original application disclosure (added matter) and that all claims lacked inventive step over the cited prior art. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal principles concerning intermediate generalisation and the relevance of technical effects in assessing added matter, ultimately ruling on the validity of the patent.
The North Face Apparel Corp v.Assistant Controller Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in Indian Patent Application No. 202117018485. A separate application seeking condonation of a 9-day delay in refiling the appeal was allowed. Notice was issued to the Respondent, who accepted notice and was granted one week to file a reply, with the matter listed for hearing on 01.09.2026.
Haw Par Corporation Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This matter concerns an application (GA-COM/1/2026) filed by Haw Par Corporation Limited on 5th August, 2026, seeking restoration of its earlier application (IPDATM 252 of 2023), which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. Before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division, the Court noted that service of the restoration application was not yet complete. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
Haw Par Brothers International Limited v.Rangoon Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order of the Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Division) in an interlocutory application (IA No. GA-COM/1/2026) filed in the main proceeding IPDATM/249/2023. The petitioner, Haw Par Brothers International Limited, sought restoration of the main application, which had been dismissed for default by an order dated 27th November, 2024. The court noted that service of the restoration application, filed on 7th August, 2026, was not yet complete and directed the matter to appear in the monthly list of October, 2026.
M/S KRBL Limited v.M/S J.R. Rice India Pvt. Ltd. and Another
The Plaintiff, M/S KRBL Limited, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against the Defendants from using the trademark 'ROYAL GATE' with the device of 'INDIA GATE' on the ground of passing off, since the INDIA GATE mark was unregistered at the time of filing. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff acquired registered rights in the INDIA GATE trademark (No. 599833 in Class 30) via an Assignment Deed dated 06.08.2019, and the mark was subsequently declared a well-known trademark. The Plaintiff sought to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate the registration and well-known status and add a claim of infringement. The Court allowed the amendment application, subject to the Plaintiff paying Rs. 50,000/- to the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, finding that the basic structure of the suit remained unchanged.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in footwear, filed a praecipe seeking withdrawal of the present Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh and comprehensive suit. The Plaintiff cited the inadvertent non-follow-up of earlier 2021 proceedings (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) and the need to comprehensively plead all material facts and subsequent developments as grounds for withdrawal. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
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.