IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 9 of 34 · 1,011 total
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
Dev Raj v.Puran Chand
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Trial Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹2,65,000/- towards discharge of liability arising from the purchase of a bus, which was dishonoured. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's own statements created doubt about the cheque being issued for consideration, and the Trial Court had taken a reasonable view warranting no interference.
M.Padmini v.The District Revenue Officer
This is a review application filed by M.Padmini seeking to reconsider the Madras High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018, which had upheld the Revenue Authority's direction requiring parties to establish their competing title claims before a competent civil court. The dispute concerned ownership of 9,795 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 46/1 of Pammal Village, with the applicant relying on a 1968 sale deed and a 1977 compromise decree, while private respondents asserted title through subsequent transactions. The Division Bench dismissed the review application as devoid of merit, holding that the grounds raised fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
Ashish Sharma v.State of H.P. and Ors.
The petitioner, a computer teacher at Dayanand Public School, Shimla, sought quashing of orders dismissing his complaint seeking registration of an FIR against the school principal for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner alleged that the principal was not authorized to sign his suspension order under CBSE affiliation by-laws, rendering it a forged document. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an order signed by a person lacking authority does not constitute forgery under Section 464 IPC, and such an order must be treated as valid unless set aside by a competent court.
LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-20) under reference UPC_A9F8C2DA68, LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 appeared in dispute with Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. v.Oshma Aeronautics
The plaintiff, Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Oshma Aeronautics, for a Main Rotor Blade of Helicopter VT-ATA valued at Rs.17,50,000/-, paying a 60% advance of Rs.10,50,000/- via RTGS. The defendant failed to deliver the product and issued multiple cheques towards refund, all of which were dishonoured. The defendant did not file a written statement, and the court, relying on Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, decreed the suit for Rs.5,70,000/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. (reduced from the claimed 24% p.a.) from the date of filing till realization, plus costs.
Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.
This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.Respondent
Procedural order of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura
The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
Om Prakash Rathore v.Smt. Laxmi Devi
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order directing eviction of the petitioners from 67.89 square meters of land in Survey No. 211, Village Moja Jhingura, Shivpuri. The Court held that summary proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could not be invoked to evict persons in long, open, and settled possession of a permanent residential structure, and that a subsequent demarcation could not revive a remedy already barred by the two-year limitation period.
Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery
This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-17) under reference UPC_CD8ADAC83B, Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany appeared in dispute with Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain, LANGUAGE OF THE CASE
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action regarding European patent EP 4 082 804 (a lithographic printing plate precursor patent). After Fujifilm surrendered the patent and requested disposal of the action under Rule 360 RoP, the Central Division Paris ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. The Court of Appeal set aside that cost decision, holding that Kodak unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings because Fujifilm had not given rise to the action and had surren
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 296159 from the Register of Patents under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing certain certificates and affidavits, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared on advance copy and accepted notice, with directions to file replies within six weeks.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
Rajnath And 11 Others v.State Of U.P. And Another
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging illegal encroachment upon Banjar (Gram Sabha) land. The Allahabad High Court held that the P.D.P.P. Act was enacted to curb vandalism and damage to public property during riots and public commotion, and cannot be invoked for cases of alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land. The court quashed the criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance order, and non-bailable warrant, observing that the proper remedy lies under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
Basamma & Anr. v.Goparappa And Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court of Karnataka's judgment that had set aside Paragraph 24 of the First Appellate Court's order. The Court held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by adjudicating the writ petition without hearing the appellants, who were necessary parties whose ownership and possession rights were directly affected. The First Appellate Court's judgment dated 02.08.2021 was restored, with the Court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits and granting respondents three months to pursue alternative remedies.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG, Feodor-Lynen-Str. 5, 30625 Hannover, D, durch die imusyn Beteiligungs GmbH, ebenda, diese gesetzlich v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH, Amtsgerichtsstr. 1-5, 35423 Lich, Deut, ihre Geschäftsführer Dr. Ingo Dunya Meier und Dr. Nicolas Sa
This procedural order concerns the defendant's request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, sought protection for a settlement agreement and cease-and-desist declaration from prior injunction proceedings between the parties, as well as information about internal processes and distribution activities. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the request, classifying the specified information as confidential, while noting that any general exclusion from third-party access would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Rectification order from the UPC Local Division of Milan concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking correction of a material error in a prior decision dated 26.5.2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023 later withdrawn on 26.11.2024. The court found the rectification request admissible and ordered deletion of the incorrect sentence.
AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland v.TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-16) under reference UPC_3C3EC632A8, AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland appeared in dispute with TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-16) under reference UPC_71B075FF11, Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and appeared in dispute with AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Shenzhen City, People', Tecno Mobile Limited, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), Stockholm, Sweden, □ Order of the Local Division of The Hague issued on 27 May
This order concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, and 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 sought reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal with Ericsson's consent, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of EUR 2,000 (50% of the EUR 4,000 appeal fees) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Shenzhen City, People', Tecno Mobile Limited, Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), Stockholm, Sweden, □ Order of the Local Division of The Hague issued on 27 May
This order 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 concerning three European patents (EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, EP 3 245 744) in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties that provided for termination of the underlying proceedings, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten, (Claimant) - Hansastraße 27c - 80686 - München – DE v.Acer Computer GmbH, Kornkamp 4, 22926 Ahrensburg, Germany,, Acer Italy s.r.L, Viale Delle Industrie, 1/A, 20044 Arese (M
The Local Division Hamburg issued a procedural order granting the Claimant's request under Rule 190 RoP for the production of evidence by a third party. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought comparable license agreements relating to the Opus standard held by the third party (acting as administrator of a patent pool) in order to respond to the Defendants' FRAND defense in infringement proceedings concerning EP2304723. Both the Defendants and the third party consented to the production under a proposed confidentiality regime, and the Court ordered the documents to be produced within two weeks, classified as 'Highly Confidential Information'.
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
A European Patent Attorney applied to be registered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court under Article 48(2) UPCA, relying on a CEIPI diploma and a University of Warsaw diploma. The Registrar rejected the application, and the applicant filed a petition for review, arguing technical difficulties with the CMS and disproportionate burden. The President of the Court of Appeal held the petition admissible but unfounded, finding that the applicant's qualifications did not mee
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an Applicant's petition for review of the Registrar's decision denying confirmation of his registration on the list of entitled representatives under Art. 48(3) UPC Agreement. The Applicant had sought confirmation of an alleged prior registration rather than a new registration, but failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he had ever filed an application in the Case Management System (CMS). The Court held that the petition was admissible but unfounded, as the Applicant could not demonstrate that any prior application had been submitted through the mandatory CMS filing system.
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.