IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 34 · 1,011 total
Jagdev Chand (Since Deceased) Through LRs v.Gurbaksh Singh & Anr
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by Jagdev Chand (since deceased) through his legal representatives, challenging the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the First Appellate Court (District Judge, Una) which had partly allowed an appeal filed by respondent Gurbaksh Singh. The respondent had sought a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in a suit concerning jointly owned land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restored the trial court's order dismissing the injunction application, holding that the appellate court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial court without recording any finding of perversity.
The Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala v.Karthik Dev R
This review petition was filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala (the 2nd respondent in the original writ appeal) seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 06.01.2026 in W.A. No. 1550 of 2025, which dismissed its writ appeal on the ground of maintainability. The core issue was whether a quasi-judicial body, whose decision was set aside by a Single Judge in a writ petition, could maintain a writ appeal to defend its own order. The Division Bench dismissed the review petition, holding that the review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appeal in disguise and that the petitioner's attempt was merely to re-agitate issues already decided on merits.
Metro Brands Limited v.Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe And Ors.
The Plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' used since 1955 in relation to footwear, sought withdrawal of its Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 21274 of 2026 along with the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition, with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Plaintiff explained that earlier proceedings filed in 2021 against the same Defendants were inadvertently not followed up, and the material facts relating to those proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh and comprehensive suit, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected Interim Application and Leave Petition.
State v.Manoj Kumar
The State prosecuted Manoj Kumar for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging possession and sale of counterfeit CEAT Limited inner tubes and packaging polythene. The prosecution's case collapsed when its star witness, the complainant Mr. Mohit Singh Rautela, turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution's narrative. The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Delhi, acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
1- Google LLC, 2- Google Germany GmbH v.1- BF exaQC AG, 2- ParTec AG
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The underlying infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) based on European patents EP3614263 and EP2164678. The Defendants argued that English should be used as the language of proceedings because it is the language in which the patents were granted, the working language of the Google group, and the predominant technical language in the field. The Claimants opposed the change, arguing that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are small entities compared to Google's resources, and their internal working language is German.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), 21 Torshamnsgatan, K, Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda., Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Pi v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Unit 1, Floor 24, Chua, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
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.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 1 Edwards Way, 92614, Irvi v.Meril Gmbh, Bornheimer Straße 135-137 - 53119 - Bonn – DE, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., M1‐M2, Meril Park, Survey No 1
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in proceedings concerning the determination of damages for infringement of European Patent No. 3 669 828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against the Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed the patent with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and the Myval System. The order sets procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the dispute (15 Mio. EUR), and arrangements for the videoconference hearing scheduled for 10 September 2026.
Metro Brands Limited v.Paul's Metro Shoe Shoppe & Ors. (Silas Paul Bandari, Xavier Paul Bandari, Murthy Anjali)
Metro Brands Limited, the proprietor of the registered and prior-used trademark 'METRO' (used since 1955 in relation to footwear), sought withdrawal of its 2026 commercial IP suit against Pauls Metro Shoe Shoppe and others with liberty to file a fresh suit. The plaintiff explained that an earlier 2021 suit (Commercial Suit No. 314 of 2021) against related defendants had inadvertently not been followed up, and the material facts of those earlier proceedings were not comprehensively incorporated in the present pleadings. The Bombay High Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty, permitted refund of court fees, and disposed of the connected interim application and leave petition.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v.Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Getmohit Cab Private Limited and others for allegedly using the 'BHARATBENZ' mark and associated device marks/logo on buses. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, and the Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
MLCU Pvt. Ltd. (Marachhiya and Laxmi Satyam Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) v.RBI Through Regional Officer
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of iron pipes, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of its cash credit accounts into term loans, reduction of interest rates, grant of a 12-month moratorium, and enhancement of credit limits up to Rs. 2 Crores from ICICI Bank. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that ICICI Bank is a private financial entity not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it is regulated by the RBI. The court further held that the reliefs sought were contractual and commercial in nature and did not involve any public duty or statutory obligation.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw all proceedings before the closure of the written procedure and did not request a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawals and ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant, Defendant 2), and Defendant 1) in accordance with the applicable Rules of Procedure.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal, information processing apparatus and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step and revoked it in its entirety, dismissing Maxell's infringement action and ordering Maxell to pay Samsung's costs.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Cybex GmbH, Riedingerstraße 18, 95448 Bayreuth, vertreten du v.Respondent
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The applicant relied on a narrower claim set combining Claims 1 and 2 of the patent as granted. The court addressed two key procedural issues: whether relying on a narrower claim set precludes preliminary measures, and whether auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief should be admitted. The court ordered preliminary injunctive relief against the respondents in multiple UPC member states.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si, v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology against several ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH regarding EP 3 849 157, along with two counterclaims for revocation filed by ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer GmbH. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation without requesting a cost decision. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each party that had paid them.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA,Rue de l’Institut 89, 1330 Ri v.the Netherlands, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-S
This procedural order concerns three related actions before the Hague Local Division involving GSK as claimant and a group of Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') as defendants, regarding two divisional patents EP856 and EP941. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office—EP941 by the opposition division on 24 June 2026 and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on 20 July 2026—for lack of novelty. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear the costs, and postponed its decision on PBNT's request to stay the remaining proceedings pending the issuance of the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry
Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar (proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry)
Bisleri International Private Limited sued Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, for trademark infringement and copyright piracy arising from the defendant's use of the mark 'Bislie' on packaged drinking water. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case that 'Bislie' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri,' with the defendant having merely deleted the letter 'r' and rearranged 'e' and 'i.' The court granted ad-interim relief including injunctive relief and appointment of a Court Receiver to search and seize infringing goods.
Niche Biomedical, Inc., (doing business as ANEUVO), 10940 Wi v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the assessment of recoverable costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant (Niche Biomedical/ANEUVO) sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% under Rule 152(2) RoP. The court held that no proper request to raise the ceiling had been made, as merely requesting reimbursement of costs exceeding the ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise it. The court set the recoverable costs at the applicable ceiling of EUR 112,000.00 and rejected the remainder of the request.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against MSN Laboratories Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and granted the plaintiffs a refund of the entire court fees.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby and Vectis appealed an order from the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. They requested a stay of the proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, that neither R. 21.2 RoP nor R. 295(m) RoP justified a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223 RoP. The Court additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 3 079 153 and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The appellants sought a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, and additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 223/2026) against Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking a permanent injunction to restrain alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 419280 (IN'280) relating to Asciminib. The Defendant filed an application seeking condonation of a 34-day delay in filing its written statement, which was allowed. The Defendant then voluntarily undertook not to commercially manufacture, sell, or deal in any product containing Asciminib or Asciminib Hydrochloride during the subsistence of IN'280, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs in Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011. The private respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that challenging the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition is contrary to Sections 25(2) and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provide equally efficacious remedies. The court issued notice limited to the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for 16th September 2026.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed in respect of four Assignment Deeds involving trademarks transferred from various parties to KKR Agro Mills Private Limited and subsequently to the Petitioner. The Madras High Court, without entering into the merits of the claim, directed the Respondent to take up and dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
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.