IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 34 · 1,011 total
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 29.04.2025 allowing respondent no.2's application for registration of the trademark '20-20' in Class 30. The appellant claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the marks '20-20', 'TWENTY-20' and 'T20' and alleged deceptive similarity with respondent no.2's mark. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was guilty of approbation and reprobation since it had obtained its own registrations by asserting its marks were distinct from respondent no.2's mark, and could not now claim deceptive similarity to challenge the latter's registration.
SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany v.Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_5A90B0CDA0, SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany appeared in dispute with Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.
Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent v.Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_59347E41E1, Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent appeared in dispute with Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Reinhausen GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. Nic v.Respondent
Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 concerning a selector for an on-load tap-changer, sought an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The applicant alleged that the respondent was exhibiting a potentially infringing on-load tap-changer designated 'DET-24kV' at its booth. The Local Chamber Munich granted the inspection order without prior hearing of the respondent, appointing an expert, an assistant, and court bailiffs to carry out the inspection, seizure of documents, and detailed technical analysis of the exhibited product.
WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney D v.ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden
This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., Carnegieplein 5, 2508 DH Den, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
This order concerns an application by Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case (Dolby v. Optoma) concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. The applicant sought access to better understand why Dolby considered the patent essential to the Opus Audio Codec standard. The court held the application partially admissible and partially well-founded, granting limited access to the statement of claim while rejecting access to exhibits as insufficiently specified.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-23) under reference UPC_9FF93D3A0F, Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) appeared in dispute with 2SEVENTY BIO, INC. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin, v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem, Rechtsanwalt Jens Künzel, LL.M., KRIEGER MES & GRAF v. der
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order on a third-party request for access to court files from a completed patent infringement case between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The applicant, the law firm Gulde & Partner, sought access to pleadings and evidence for internal training and preparation purposes before the Unified Patent Court. The original parties initially opposed the request citing trade secret concerns, but the plaintiff later withdrew its confidentiality objections while the defendant narrowed its claims to specific information about distribution channel removal measures. The court held the request admissible and partially meritorious, granting access to most documents but with redactions where confidentiality interests prevailed.
Verfahrensvertreter: Linklaters LLP, Taunusanlage 8, 60329 F, Anlage 35-37, 60327 Frankfurt am Main v.Golkowsky, Joachimsthaler Straße 10-12, 10719 Berlin, PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Schmellerstraße 4, 80337 Mü
This case concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff applied to withdraw the nullity action, and the defendant consented. The court granted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings, but reduced the plaintiff's request for a 60% reimbursement of court fees to 50%, applying the amended Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2026.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.,, 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USA v.The Walt Disney Company, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 9, Disney Interactive, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521,
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
TVS Motor Company Limited v.Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
TVS Motor Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers, filed a commercial suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against Ram Chandra Maurya and others who had been issuing cease-and-desist notices alleging copyright infringement based on two copyright registrations for literary works titled 'Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law' and 'Motion's Sixth Law'. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendants had been unsuccessful in proving copyright violation before the Copyright Authority and up to the Supreme Court, and that patent applications for the same subject matter had been abandoned. The Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing such threats.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent under Application No. 202227024750. The Court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled copy of the Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the respondent, who accepted notice through counsel, with directions to file reply within six weeks and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order dated 30.06.2023 refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 titled 'Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a B Raf Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor' on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning on inventive step, Section 3(d), Section 3(i), and Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) to be deficient and lacking in proper analysis. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Controller for de novo reconsideration, with directions to dispose of the application within six months and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 294/2026) before the Delhi High Court challenged a Single Judge's judgment dated 09.02.2026 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, which had directed variation of the trademark 'AiC ARUN' (Registration No. 1524226) registered in favor of Respondent No. 1 by deleting the word 'ARUN' under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. In the LPA, the appellant sought permission to dispose of its existing stock of goods, spare parts, and packing material bearing the mark 'AIC Arun', valued at approximately Rs. 8,50,000/-, within six months. With consent from both parties, the court permitted disposal of the stock on or before 31.01.2027 and directed the appellant to file a statement of disposal by 07.02.2027.
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-22) under reference UPC_A6ED7D66C6, PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo appeared in dispute with DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., 2237 Faraday Ave, CA 92008, v.1) Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
In this legal proceeding before The Hague Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-22) under reference UPC_17AE80A1FE, Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., 2237 Faraday Ave, CA 92008, appeared in dispute with 1) Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed Original Applications seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing its registered Patent No.IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The dispute concerned an allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at the premises of the second defendant in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The Court extended the previously granted interim order until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent revocation petition filed by Asustek Computer Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent No. 387206 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a Commercial IP Suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and another against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The Plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the Defendants sold a competing product called 'Apex Pickle Container'. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed during the hearing, with the Defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining it from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the impugned trade dress, artwork, or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' products.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This case before the UPC Local Division of Milan concerns patent infringement claims by Prinoth against Xelom regarding European patents EP 2507436 and EP 1995159, both relating to snow groomer (battipista) technology. Following an ex parte evidence preservation order executed in April 2025, Prinoth sought additional evidence including document production, physical inspection, and judicial experiments to prove infringement. The Judge Rapporteur granted the request for physical inspection and wei
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
The Central Division (Munich) of the Unified Patent Court partially invalidated European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1 concerning a fastening element made of wood and/or wood materials. The plaintiff Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH sought nullity of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8–11 on grounds of inadmissible extension, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held the nullity action partially successful, declaring the patent partially invalid to the extent it exceeded the subject matter of auxilia
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 restraining the Appellant from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The Appellant contended that the Respondent suppressed material facts, namely 45 GST paid tax invoices evidencing use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no suppression of material facts and that the Appellant's earlier trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' had already been refused by the Registrar on 29.07.2024 on grounds of conflict with the Respondent's mark and lack of bona fide adoption.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a commercial IP suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and Anr against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the defendants sold a competing 'Apex Pickle Container' with allegedly similar trade dress and packaging. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed on the date of hearing, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the impugned product.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
This trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed by SAPAT International Private Limited against NIRAVI Consumer LLP and related defendants, alleging that the defendants' use of the mark 'SAPAT' on tea products and at retail outlets constituted infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark in Class 30 and passing off. The defendants, partnership firms involving Ritu Nikhil Joshi and Nikhil Joshi (a director of the plaintiff company), marketed tea under the brand 'NIRAVI' while displaying 'SAPAT' on signages and hoardings. The Bombay High Court found that the defendants' use of signages and invoices infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark, but dismissed the application alleging violation of the earlier order dated 28th January, 2025, holding that the restriction was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea.
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.