IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 50 · 1,474 total
Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v.Martin and Brown Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (in suit); Mr. Vineet Maini & Ors. (in rectification petition)
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and a connected commercial suit after the parties settled their disputes through mediation. A Settlement Agreement dated 27.07.2026 was placed on record, pursuant to which the commercial suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and the rectification petition was allowed by mutual consent. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and expunge the impugned trademark 'SOMI-MB' (application No. 5982177 in Class 5), and the plaintiff was granted a refund of the entire court fee.
Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited
This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.
The defendants, four Amazon Web Services entities belonging to the same corporate group, applied for alignment of deadlines for filing their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation, since the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates. The claimant agreed to alignment but proposed 29 October 2026 as the common deadline, while the defendants requested 11 November 2026. The judge-rapporteur aligned all deadlines to run from 29 July 2026, the earliest date of service, ordering all defendants to file their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation by 29 October 2026.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc. and American Wave Machines, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. WhiteWater had no objections to the request, while American Wave opposed it and sought protective measures.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This order concerns the release of a cost security deposit (Prozesskostensicherheit) in proceedings before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide €150,000 in cost security for the appeal proceedings. After the defendant fully paid the cost assessment amount of €38,230.10 owed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed receipt, the defendant applied for release of the security deposit, to which the plaintiff consented.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal challenged the trial court's rejection of a temporary injunction application filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to purchase land for an industrial park. The plaintiff had entered into reciprocal land exchange arrangements with defendant No.1 Debasish Pal but sought injunction after the defendant delayed transferring 151.46 decimals of land. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and granting the injunction, finding that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case based on the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance already executed.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors
This appeal arose from the rejection of a temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial court had erred in rejecting the injunction, and granted relief restraining the respondents from altering the suit property, obstructing common passage access, or creating third-party interests.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal And Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court at Howrah, which had rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement to transfer land for an industrial park project. The Division Bench held that the trial court erred in finding no prima facie case, as the oral agreement was evident from the conduct of the parties and the deeds of conveyance executed between them. The court set aside the trial court's order and granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from altering the suit property, obstructing the common passage, or creating third-party interests.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This case before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Rule 296(3) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the effect of resuming previously stayed proceedings on procedural time limits. The parties had jointly requested a stay for amicable settlement negotiations, which ultimately failed. The court ruled that procedural periods resume from the date of the resumption order, taking into account the periods that had already elapsed prior to the stay, rather than beginning to run entirely afresh.
Amycel, LLC v.[Appellant] (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellant's principal request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation facilities (English to Polish) during an oral hearing in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350. The appellant, a natural person and the defendant in the first instance proceedings, argued that his limited command of English justified Court-arranged interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA. The Court held that the conditions for ordering interpretation were not met, as the appellant was duly represented by a professional representative and had not shown that his personal attendance rendered Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The Court granted the alternative request, permitting the appellant to engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed the interpretation of Rule 296.3 RoP regarding how procedural time limits resume after a stay of proceedings is lifted. The parties had jointly requested a stay for settlement negotiations, which was granted from 29 May 2026 to 1 September 2026. When negotiations failed, the defendants argued that time limits should start completely fresh, while the plaintiff argued they should resume accounting for time already elapsed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that R. 296.3 RoP provides for a suspension (not interruption) of time limits, meaning they resume from the date the stay ends while accounting for the time already elapsed before the suspension.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection under Rule 192 RoP. Essity, proprietor of European patent EP 3 289 139 relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers, had obtained an ex parte order from the Hague Local Division allowing evidence preservation against WEPA, including the questioning of WEPA's personnel. The Court of Appeal partially upheld WEPA's appeal, ruling that Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant's personnel on technical details, while rejecting WEPA's prior use right defense and compensation claim.
M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd. v.M/S Fabtech Cables P.Ltd. & Ors.
This is an order in CS(COMM) 555/2016 before the Delhi High Court, where the Plaintiff, M/S Hi Tech Products Pvt. Ltd., filed an interlocutory application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking permission to file a rectification petition concerning the registration of trademark No. 2261508 in Class 09, by framing an issue of invalidity of the said registration. The Court directed issuance of notice to the Defendants through all permissible modes, returnable on 26.11.2026, the date already fixed.
Braj Mohan Rathore v.Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd & Ors
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 685/2026) was filed before the Delhi High Court by Braj Mohan Rathore, who claimed he was not a party to the original proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The appellant contended that respondent nos. 3 and 4, who were the original parties, were his predecessors in interest, having assigned the rights in the trademark 'GOLDY' to him. The court directed the appellant to file supporting documents and an affidavit regarding his relationship with respondent nos. 3 and 4, while noting a potentially contradictory affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 before the Registrar of Trademarks.
Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited v.S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries and Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited against S Bahadur Singh, Sole Proprietor of Shaktiman Agro Industries, before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought to place additional documents on record and sought interim injunctive relief. Based on the defendants' own stand in their written statement that they do not use the SHAKTIMAN trademark and instead sell their harvester combine under the AS-930 mark, the court directed the defendants not to use SHAKTIMAN as a trademark in future.
Alok Niwas Private Limited v.Debasish Pal and Ors.
The Calcutta High Court allowed an appeal filed by Alok Niwas Private Limited against the rejection of its temporary injunction application by the trial court in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff had entered into an oral agreement with the respondent for mutual conveyance of land to set up an industrial park, and sought to restrain the respondent from altering the suit property and obstructing ingress and egress. The Division Bench set aside the trial court's order and granted the injunction, restraining the respondents from changing the nature of the suit property, making constructions, alienating the property, or obstructing the common passage.
Metro Brands Limited v.Met Brands Private Limited
Metro Brands Limited, a Mumbai-based footwear retailer, filed a commercial IPR suit against Met Brands Private Limited, a Kerala-based company, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition. The plaintiff sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent to join the cause of action for passing off (which arose in Kerala) with its trademark infringement claim filed in Bombay. The Bombay High Court dismissed the leave petition, holding that since both causes of action arose in Kerala and the defendant carried on business there, the plaintiff should file the suit in the appropriate forum in Kerala rather than exercising its discretionary choice of forum in Bombay.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, directed at the Disney+ streaming service. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, challenging novelty and inventive step. The court found the patent valid as amended in its auxiliary requests and partially infringed, granting injunctive relief, information and disclosure orders, and damages, while dismissing other aspects of the infringement action.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This is an order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The order was issued alongside a main decision on the same day in proceedings involving InterDigital CE Patent Holdings as claimant and multiple Walt Disney Company entities as defendants regarding European Patent EP 2 080 349. The court classified certain information from the main decision as confidential and restricted access to the claimant's outside counsels and two named representatives.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant, Yangtze Memory Technologies, sought to disregard Defendants' new arguments introduced for the first time in their Rejoinder regarding an alleged prior use right based on the Z01M die and the assertion that the 'internal mode' is deactivated in commercially sold devices comprising the Y2BM die. The court deferred the decision on whether to reject these arguments as belated until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to file a further written pleading by 17 September 2026 to respond to the new arguments as a precautionary measure.
IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action involving European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant Iagon provide security for costs of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that the defendants had not sufficiently credibly demonstrated that Iagon's financial position or the enforceability of a cost order in the UAE justified ordering security for costs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr.
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against Zydus Healthcare Limited and another defendant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 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 under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
Ashok Kumar Bansal Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a matter filed by Ashok Kumar Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries, against the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and others. An adjournment slip was circulated on behalf of the Petitioner with no objection from the Respondents. The Court granted the adjournment and listed the matter for 04.02.2027.
Satpaul Mittal v.State of Punjab & Anr.
This is a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.20974/2025 arising from the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's final judgment dated 17-11-2025 in CRM-M No.43177/2020. During the hearing before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner would file an affidavit undertaking not to use the trademark allegedly similar to that of respondent no.2 before the next date of listing. The Court listed the matter for further hearing on 18.09.2026.
Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.
This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2026) filed by Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company against the Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications and others. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, listed the matter for further hearing on 03.09.2026.
Ashok Kumar Jain v.Kumar Food Industries Ltd
This appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated 16.05.2026 in CS (COMM) 842/2024, wherein the respondent's suit was decreed including damages of Rs. 5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellant challenged only the damages portion and did not contest the finding regarding the impugned trademark 'MAHA SHAKTI BHOG'. The parties ultimately settled the dispute, with the appellant agreeing to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- in three equal installments within three months and to withdraw his trademark application for 'Maha Shakti Bhog' in Class-30.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. v.Sanofi
This order of the Delhi High Court disposed of two connected first appeals arising from a trademark dispute concerning the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate drugs. The appellants (Intas) stated they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using CLAVINTAS, and accordingly sought to withdraw their appeal. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with Intas directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi within four weeks.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr v.Sanofi
This order pertains to two connected appeals before the Delhi High Court arising from a trademark dispute involving the mark CLAVIX used for clopidogrel bisulphate. The appellants (Intas Pharmaceuticals) sought to withdraw their appeal, stating they had no intention to revert to the trademark CLAVIX and were instead using the brand CLAVINTAS. The respondent (Sanofi) did not wish to press its cross-appeal, and accordingly both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn, with the appellants directed to satisfy the judgment/decree by paying Sanofi 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.