IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 6 of 50 · 1,474 total
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Paris Local Division following a case management conference in a patent infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP2949070 held by KEEEX SAS. The order addresses the value of the dispute (estimated at €6,622,802,000), the prospects for amicable resolution, the main legal points to be argued at the oral hearing, and the practical arrangements for the hearing scheduled for October 6, 2026. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of patent claims relating to digital identification fingerprints versus digital signatures, the validity of the patent against prior art, and alleged infringement by the defendants.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. ETRI had filed a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms entities in December 2025, and Meta had filed a counterclaim for revocation in May 2026. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, they withdrew their respective actions and the Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Sidel Participations SAS v.OMNIA Technologies S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS challenging the Central Division Paris's rejection of a Preliminary objection. The core issue was whether the UPC has competence to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patents filed before their grant. The Court held that this is a question of admissibility rather than competence, and that the UPC has competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA for declarations of non-infringement of patents.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against several Samsung Electronics entities regarding European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court found the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art D1 (US 2006/263048 A1), and all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, resulting in the revocation of the patent in its entirety and dismissal of the infringement action.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung Electronics entities concerning European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung filed a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it lacked novelty as granted over prior art and that all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, and dismissed the infringement action with costs awarded to Samsung.
Ashique Exports Pvt. Ltd. v.Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt. Ltd. & Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, Ashique Exports Pvt.Ltd., proprietor of the registered trademark 'Dr. WASH' (Registration No. 1130214) for washing soap, sued the defendants, Koyenco Soaps and Detergents Pvt.Ltd. and Koyenco Consumer Products Pvt.Ltd., alleging infringement and passing off through their use of the mark 'Dr. BRIGHT'. The defendants additionally filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to expunge the plaintiff's trademark registration. The Madras High Court dismissed both the suit and the rectification petition, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reliefs.
State v.Chandan Kumar Tiwari and Anr.
This case involved charges under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act against two accused persons for allegedly dealing in counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. The prosecution's case collapsed because the complainant and the Director of Speed Search Pvt. Ltd. (the authorized investigator) remained untraceable for nearly seven years. The Court acquitted both accused, holding that without the complainant's testimony, the prosecution could not establish the essential ingredients of the offences, and mere recovery of allegedly infringing articles was insufficient for conviction.
State v.Arun Jaiswal and Anr.
This criminal case involved charges under Sections 63/65 of the Copyright Act and Sections 103/104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from an alleged raid on counterfeit products bearing the trademarks of M/s Titan Fastrack Sonata. The prosecution's case collapsed when the complainant turned hostile and failed to support the material allegations. The court acquitted both accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Mujeeb A.K v.State Of Kerala
This writ petition was filed before the Kerala High Court by Mujeeb A.K challenging an order of the 6th respondent (Jofin Lukose). During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the service of the 6th respondent had already been terminated. In light of this submission, the court closed the writ petition while leaving open all contentions of the petitioner.
Puneet Batra v.Union Of India & Ors
The Petitioner, an Advocate, challenged the search conducted on 25.07.2025 at the premises of M/s Bass Legal LLP, including his cabin, and the seizure of his CPU and documents, along with the panchnama and summons issued on the same date, alleging violation of advocate-client privilege. The Respondents contended that the search was duly authorized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act and that prima facie material indicated the Petitioner was personally involved in the affairs of M/s Matkarma Technology Pvt. Ltd. (MTPL) beyond acting as a legal adviser. The Delhi High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the search was validly authorized and that advocate-client privilege cannot operate as an absolute bar against investigation into the Advocate's own conduct, while directing safeguards for the protection of privileged and third-party client data.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is a brief procedural listing order passed by the Delhi High Court in a commercial appeal concerning trademark matters. The court listed the matter for the next date of hearing without recording any substantive reasoning or decision on the merits.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 3 471 419. Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against Meta Platforms and related entities, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_1310/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1737/2026) concerning EP 4 024 777, filed by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities. The court ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to both sides, rejecting the claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants (VeyorEx, Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech) for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor known as the 'Bendy Boom.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent after the termination of a prior licence agreement, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 471 419. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions—Huawei's infringement action and the Meta defendants' counterclaim for revocation—and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a proportional 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc. (UPC-CoA-121/2026)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected AMMS's appeal against a cost decision ordering it to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks. The court held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA for appeals against revocation decisions does not extend to separate cost proceedings, and that the Court of First Instance did not exceed its discretion in refusing to stay the cost proceedings or order payment by instalments.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned EP 4 024 777 and involved a patent infringement action by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each side, rejecting the Claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants including VeyorEx B.V., Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent through the manufacture and sale of the 'Bendy Boom' telescopic belt conveyor after termination of a prior licence agreement, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation.
Panacea Biotec Limited v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks & Ors.
Panacea Biotec Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 13.02.2026 passed by the Patent Controller regarding Patent No. 272351, and to withdraw its post-grant amendment application (Form-13) filed on 17.05.2019 under Section 57 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition, permitting the withdrawal of the amendment application without prejudice to the parties' rights, and directed the Learned Controller to decide the pending post-grant oppositions under Section 25(2) of the 1970 Act within nine weeks.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This is a rectification application before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's chain of title and right to maintain the rectification application, but arguments could not be concluded and the matter was adjourned.
Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited v.Glorious Investments Limited and Anr.
This case involves a rectification application filed before the Calcutta High Court's Intellectual Property Rights Division concerning the trade mark 'Dunlop Fort' under No.7624 in Class 12, registered in the name of Glorious Investments Limited. The original applicant, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, was substituted by Sumitomo Rubber Industries Limited. The petitioner's counsel commenced arguments to establish Sumitomo's standing and right to maintain the rectification application, tracing the chain of title through various agreements, but the arguments could not be concluded.
K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd v.Indotech Switchgear And Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr.
This is a procedural order passed by the Delhi High Court in a trademark cancellation petition filed by K K Electro Appliances Pvt Ltd against Indotech Switchgear and Controls Delhi Private Limited & Anr. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Section 151 CPC seeking cancellation/removal of trademark registration No. 4314092 in Class 09. The court disposed of the interlocutory applications and issued notice to the respondents, returnable on 19.01.2027.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.Hostinger Operations UAB & 4 Others (Fino Payments Bank Limited, Sachin Kumar, Rohit Kumar, John Doe operating ashokaleyland.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against the respondents for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off arising from the use of its registered marks 'LEYLAND' and 'ASHOK LEYLAND' and the impugned domain name 'ashokaleyland.com'. The respondents included a Lithuanian web hosting company, a payments bank, two John Doe individuals, and an unknown operator of the infringing website. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim injunction until the next hearing date.
The Principal Commissioner v.M/S Dhariwal Industries Pvt Limited
The Gujarat High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner challenging the CESTAT order that allowed M/s Dhariwal Industries Pvt Ltd's appeal seeking remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondent had huge stocks of pan masala and gutkha bearing the brand name 'Manikchand' which became unsellable due to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Mandleshwar restraining use of that trademark. The Court held that the goods were beyond the respondent's control to market and squarely covered under Rule 21, and consequently quashed the consequential show cause notice in the connected writ petition.
Pangode Co-Operative Society Ltd. v.The New India Assurance Co. Ltd
This transfer petition arose from cross-appeals filed by both parties against a common order dated 5.7.2024 passed by the Commercial Court-III, Ernakulam, in proceedings challenging an arbitral award. The petitioners sought transfer of C.M.A.(Arb) Nos. 27 and 28 of 2024, pending before the Principal District Court, Ernakulam, to the Kerala High Court. The court allowed the petition, holding that under the amended Government Order designating Commercial Courts, appeals from arbitration-related commercial disputes must be filed before the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court.
Man Mohan Narang v.Union Of India & Anr
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Registrar of Trade Marks to process and allow Form TM-12 filed on 21.02.2012 for Trademark Registration No. 1081552, and to waive a surcharge of Rs. 5,000/-. The Registrar agreed to process the renewal application in accordance with law upon payment of prescribed fee, restoration charges, and the surcharge. The Delhi High Court disposed of the petition granting the petitioner liberty to file the renewal application within one month, with no expression on merits.
Shubham Khandelwal Through Shubham Trading Company v.S.K. Trademark Through Proprietor Gaurav
This is a criminal revision petition filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, in which the petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent's counsel raised no objection to the condonation of delay. The court allowed the application, condoned the delay, called for the record, and listed the matter after two weeks.
Phonepe Limited v.The Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
This is an interlocutory application filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking waiver of a cost of Rs. 10,000/- that had been imposed upon it by an earlier order dated 13.08.2026. The court found no ground made out for waiver of the cost and dismissed the application.
M/S Raj Abhushan Bhandar v.Deputy Registrar, Trademark & Anr
This is a non-substantive procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a trademark appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 36/2023). Because the presiding judge was on leave, the matter was not taken up and was re-notified for hearing on 11th January 2027.
M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils Private Limited v.M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arose from a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning edible oils. The respondent/plaintiff, M/s. Sri Tulasi Industries, claimed prior use of the trademark 'Tasty Gold' since December 2000, while the appellants/defendants, M/s. Vaidehi Agro Oils, adopted the mark 'Namaskar Tasty Nutts' for a blended edible oil. The Telangana High Court upheld the Trial Court's grant of temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendants' mark was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion among illiterate and semiliterate consumers.
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.