Intellectual Property Newsletter | June 2026

Welcome to the June 2026 edition of the Dentons Link Legal IP & Technology Newsletter, The global IP ecosystem is experiencing strong momentum with record-high filings, a surge of AI-driven innovation, and pivotal rulings reflecting both technological advancement and evolving regulatory priorities.

The Weird & Wonderful - Bizzare IP Cases

• Motorized Twisting Pasta Fork: In what can be regarded as a creative attempt to modernize a traditional dining utensil, US5062211A (granted November 5, 1991) describes a “Motorized Twisting Pasta Fork.” Developed by Paul A. Di Amico, the invention consists of a dining fork having a hollow handle that houses a battery-operated motor. The motor is mechanically connected to the fork's tines through a gear reduction system, enabling the tines to rotate automatically when activated. The rotating action assists users in gathering spaghetti and other pasta products around the fork without requiring manual wrist-twisting. The design also incorporates control switches that allow the user to start, stop, and regulate the rotational movement as necessary. Overall, the invention seeks to simplify the process of eating pasta while improving convenience and usability, particularly for individuals who may find conventional fork-twirling difficult. [Source]

• How One Word (“ANY”) Helped Collapse an $11.5 Million Patent Verdict: In a striking patent litigation twist from June 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated an $11.5 million patent infringement award obtained by Ollnova Technologies Ltd. against ecobee Technologies ULC over smart thermostat technology used in wireless building automation systems. The jury had found that ecobee infringed at least one of four asserted patents and awarded lump-sum damages. However, the Federal Circuit ordered a new trial after identifying flaws in both the verdict form and the jury instructions. Most notably, the verdict form asked jurors whether ecobee infringed “ANY” of the asserted patents without requiring them to specify which patent had been infringed, creating a risk that jurors agreed infringement occurred but disagreed on the patent involved. The Court also held that the jury was not properly instructed on patent eligibility under Section 101 because it was not informed of the abstract idea identified by the court at the first stage of the Alice analysis. As a result, the infringement verdict and damages award were set aside, making the case a noteworthy example of a multimillion-dollar patent judgment being undone by procedural issues rather than the underlying technology itself. [Source]

Legal & Regulatory Updates

India

• CDSCO directs implementation of Pharmacovigilance System under Schedule M: On 3 June 2026, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation issued a circular regarding implementation of a Pharmacovigilance (PV) System as per the requirement of Schedule M under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the Rules framed thereunder. The circular is significant for pharmaceutical manufacturers as it reinforces the obligation to maintain active post-market safety monitoring systems, including adverse event collection, safety-data review, documentation, quality oversight and regulatory reporting mechanisms. The development reflects India’s broader movement toward strengthening drug-safety surveillance and aligning manufacturing quality systems with continuous pharmacovigilance obligations. [Source]
• PPL India gets statutory backing for licensing sound recording rights: Phonographic Performance Limited (“PPL India”), which represents nearly 500 Indian and international music labels, has received registration as a copyright society under the Copyright Act, 1957, a landmark moment for the country's music industry. The certificate was issued on June 11, 2026, by the Registrar of Copyrights under the DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. For several years, many commercial users of music had withheld licence fee payments on the grounds that PPL lacked formal copyright society registration, a gap this move now closes decisively. Going forward, businesses using copyrighted sound recordings without prior authorisation will be required to secure the appropriate licences and clear outstanding dues, ensuring royalty revenues flow back to rights holders and artists. For a music ecosystem spanning hotels, malls, radio stations, and streaming platforms, this is the structural clarity the industry has long waited for. [Source]
• CDSCO issues update on sale of IVF media, reagents and ART-related consumables: On 24 June 2026, CDSCO issued a public notice concerning the sale of In-Vitro Fertilization media, reagents and related consumables used in Assisted Reproductive Technology procedures. The update is relevant for fertility clinics, ART laboratories, importers, distributors and medical-device suppliers dealing with specialised reproductive-health products. The notice reflects increased regulatory attention toward products used in assisted reproductive procedures, where quality, traceability, authorised sale channels and product integrity are directly linked to patient safety and clinical outcomes. [Source]

Global Updates

• FDA issues draft guidance to accelerate gene therapies incorporating genome editing: On 2 June 2026, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued draft guidance titled “Leveraging Prior Knowledge in the Development of Human Gene Therapy Products Incorporating Genome Editing.” The guidance is intended to assist sponsors developing human gene therapy products involving ex vivo and in vivo genome editing of human somatic cells. It explains how sponsors may use existing public and platform knowledge across chemistry, manufacturing and controls, nonclinical data and clinical data to streamline regulatory submissions and improve development efficiency, particularly for rare and life-threatening diseases. The Federal Register notice was published on 3 June 2026, with comments due by 1 September 2026. [Source]
• EMA CHMP recommends six new medicines for approval at June 2026 meeting: On 26 June 2026, the European Medicines Agency published highlights from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use meeting held from 22-25 June 2026. The CHMP recommended six new medicines for approval, including Aujemflu, an inactivated influenza vaccine for people aged 50 years and older; Hopledo, a levodopa/carbidopa product for Parkinson’s disease with motor fluctuations; and Onswik, insulin efsitora alfa for adults with type 2 diabetes. The committee also adopted positive opinions for two biosimilars, Denosumab Ascend and Nylaspeg, covering indications relating to cancer-related bone complications, giant cell tumour of bone and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. [Source]
• US House lawmakers release draft bill to prohibit state AI rules: A bipartisan House duo namely, Democrat Lori Trahan and Republican Jay Obernolte, has released draft legislation that would effectively strip states of the power to regulate AI model development, permitting only federal oversight of how AI systems are built and tested before release. The draft stops short of a full federal takeover, leaving states free to govern how AI is used, but critics say that distinction matters little in practice. Public Citizen warned the bill leaves Americans exposed, noting it fails to address algorithmic discrimination, deepfake exploitation, youth mental health harms, and consumer fraud, while handing oversight to a federal government that has yet to pass meaningful AI protections. The tech industry, unsurprisingly, welcomed the move, with the Information Technology Industry Council calling for exactly the kind of unified national standard the bill proposes. The draft arrives as the White House continues to push for federal pre-emption of state AI rules, and just days after President Trump signed an executive order asking leading AI developers to voluntarily submit frontier models for government cybersecurity testing ahead of public release. [Source]

Deep Dive of the Trending Cases

India

Delhi High Court's HINDWARE Keyword Advertising Judgment: A Critique of Expanding Trademark Rights Beyond Consumer Confusion

The Delhi High Court's decision in the HINDWARE case holds that Google's sale of "HINDWARE" as a keyword for Google Ads constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trademarks Act, even in the absence of evidence of consumer confusion or diverted sales. The Court concluded that allowing competitors to bid on the trademark amounted to "use" of the mark by Google and that such use unfairly benefited from the trademark owner's reputation.

DLL Analysis: The Delhi High Court's decision in this case significantly expands trademark protection in the digital advertising ecosystem. By holding that Google's sale of "HINDWARE" as a Google Ads keyword constitutes trademark infringement under Section 29(8) of the Trademarks Act, the Court shifted the focus from consumer confusion to the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a trademark's reputation. The ruling recognizes keyword advertising as a form of "use" by the platform itself, imposing greater responsibility on intermediaries. While the judgment strengthens trademark owners' rights, it also raises concerns regarding competition, comparative advertising, and the operational model of search engine advertising. [Source]

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. Numen Pharma Private Limited, Bombay High Court, 8 June 2026

On 8 June 2026, the Bombay High Court dealt with a pharmaceutical trademark infringement and passing-off dispute between Alkem Laboratories Ltd. and Numen Pharma Private Limited. Alkem claimed rights over its registered mark “ALCIPRO”, adopted in 1990 and used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations containing Ciprofloxacin, used for treating bacterial infections and infections of the urinary tract, nose, throat, skin, soft tissues and lungs. The dispute arose because the defendant was also engaged in the pharmaceutical business, and Alkem sought protection against alleged use of a deceptively similar mark in relation to medicinal products. The Court had earlier granted an interim relief restraining infringement of Alkem’s registered mark, and the June 2026 order arose in the interim application in the commercial IP suit.

DLL Analysis: This case is important because it again demonstrates the heightened standard applied by Indian courts in pharmaceutical trademark disputes. In the medicinal sector, similarity between marks can create risks beyond ordinary commercial confusion; it may affect prescriptions, dispensing and patient safety. The dispute also shows the value of long-standing use, registration history, sales data, promotional material and invoice evidence in establishing goodwill and brand recognition. For pharmaceutical companies, the case reinforces that brand clearance must be especially strict where products relate to active pharmaceutical ingredients, infectious-disease treatment or prescription medicines. [Source]

Yogesh Kumar Dewangan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh High Court, 18 June 2026

On 18 June 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court considered a petition challenging criminal proceedings registered under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR, chargesheet, cognizance order, order framing charge and consequential proceedings pending before the Special Judge (NDPS), Balodabazar. Although the matter arose under narcotics law rather than the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, it is relevant to life sciences and pharmaceutical compliance because NDPS proceedings frequently intersect with regulated medicinal substances, controlled formulations and pharmaceutical distribution controls.

DLL Analysis: This case can be included as a broader pharma-compliance enforcement update where medicinal or controlled substances trigger criminal-law scrutiny. The decision is useful for highlighting that pharmaceutical supply chains involving controlled substances require heightened compliance controls. Businesses dealing with narcotic or psychotropic ingredients, cough syrups, sedatives, analgesics or other scheduled formulations should maintain precise records of procurement, stock, transport and sale. Even where products have legitimate medical use, gaps in documentation may create exposure under narcotics enforcement laws. [Source]

Global

Fujifilm Corporation v. Kodak GmbH & Ors.

On 2 June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment concerning EP 3 511 174, a patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for infringement of both the German and UK designations of the patent, while Kodak counterclaimed for revocation on grounds including lack of priority, added matter, lack of novelty and inventive step. The Court accepted Kodak’s challenge to Fujifilm’s earliest priority claim and held that certain procedural and claim-construction findings of the Mannheim Local Division were incorrect. However, it ultimately upheld the patent in an amended form and rejected Kodak’s principal invalidity attacks. At the same time, the Court set aside the first-instance infringement ruling and dismissed Fujifilm’s infringement claims. Importantly, the Court confirmed that the UPC has jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning non-UPC designations of European patents, including the UK designation, subject to applicable rules of international jurisdiction and comity.

DLL Analysis: The decision clarifies that numerical claim limitations should be interpreted according to the claim language and technical context and do not automatically include manufacturing or measurement tolerances. It also confirms that prior-use rights under Article 28 UPCA are governed by the relevant national law. Most notably, the ruling affirms the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement claims involving non-UPC European patent designations, including UK patents, thereby strengthening the UPC’s role in cross-border patent enforcement and making it a more attractive forum for multinational patent disputes. [Source]

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court, 4 June 2026

On 4 June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a unanimous decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., concerning induced infringement in the context of generic drug “skinny labels.” Amarin alleged that Hikma induced infringement of Amarin’s method-of-use patents covering the cardiovascular-risk indication of Vascepa, even though Hikma’s generic label carved out that patented indication and was approved only for the severe hypertriglyceridemia indication. The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin failed to state a claim for induced infringement based on Hikma’s skinny label, website and related communications.

DLL Analysis: This is one of the most important U.S. pharmaceutical patent decisions of June 2026 because it directly affects the balance between patented medical uses and generic market entry. The ruling strengthens the ability of generic manufacturers to rely on section viii carve-outs where they avoid patented indications in their FDA-approved labels. For innovator companies, the decision raises the pleading threshold for induced infringement claims based on skinny labels and surrounding promotional materials. Practically, brand companies will need more specific evidence showing affirmative encouragement of infringing use, while generic companies will likely treat the decision as support for carefully drafted label carve-outs and restrained marketing. [Source]

Hologic, Inc. v. Siemens Healthineers, UPC Düsseldorf Local Division, 10 June 2026

On 10 June 2026, the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division issued a decision in proceedings involving Hologic, Inc. and Siemens Healthineers concerning patent EP 2 352 431 B1. The case involved medical technology and addressed issues including literal infringement, private prior-use rights, recall/removal remedies and proportionality of injunctions in the medical-device context. The UPC summary notes that proportionality of injunctions for medical devices must be considered in view of patient interests, while also recognising that structural claim features cannot be reduced merely to functionality where the accused embodiment incorporates all claimed structural features.

DLL Analysis: This decision is significant for med-tech patent enforcement in Europe because it shows how the UPC is approaching injunctions in cases involving medical devices. The Court recognised that patient interests may be relevant to proportionality, but that does not automatically prevent injunctive relief where infringement is established. The case also highlights that attempts to avoid infringement by arguing inferior performance may fail if the accused product still includes the claimed structural features. For medical-device companies, the ruling underscores the need for early freedom-to-operate analysis, careful design-around documentation and contingency planning for injunction, recall or software-deactivation remedies across UPC territories. [Source]

Novo Nordisk website-blocking proceedings concerning counterfeit GLP-1 medicines, UK High Court, 25 June 2026

On 25 June 2026, reports discussed UK proceedings in which Novo Nordisk secured an extension of a website-blocking order aimed at websites advertising and selling counterfeit or unauthorised GLP-1 products, including products referencing Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus, Victoza and Saxenda. The order was directed at major UK internet service providers and concerned websites selling counterfeit or unlicensed semaglutide products. Reports noted that this type of blocking remedy, historically associated with copyright piracy and online counterfeiting, is being used in a public-health-sensitive pharmaceutical context.

DLL Analysis: Novo Nordisk’s case is important because it shows how pharmaceutical enforcement is adapting to online counterfeit medicines. Counterfeit GLP-1 drugs are not merely trademark violations; they create immediate patient-safety risks because products may contain unsafe ingredients, incorrect dosages, impurities or no active ingredient. A dynamic blocking order gives pharmaceutical companies a faster mechanism to disrupt infringing websites that may otherwise disappear and reappear under new domains. The case may become a model for rights holders dealing with high-demand medicines where counterfeiting, public health and digital enforcement overlap. [Source]

Swatch seeks $170 million in damage from Samsung over trademark infringement

Swiss watchmaking giant Swatch is seeking $170 million in damages from Samsung in what it describes as the largest trademark case of its kind ever brought before a UK court, and a ruling could come any day now. London's High Court had already found Samsung liable for trademark infringement back in 2022, after third-party apps on Samsung smartwatches allowed users to display near-identical replicas of Swatch-owned timepieces, including luxury models from Omega and Tissot. The current trial was solely about the quantum of damage. Swatch's $170 million figure is pegged to hypothetical license fees across 10 of its explicitly accounts for the prestige and commercial drawing power of those names, a framing designed to ensure the damages reflect not just lost sales, but the value of the brand equity Samsung allegedly exploited for free. The case, which predates Brexit and therefore also covers alleged infringement within the EU, could have further reach: a ruling in Swatch's favour is expected to open the door to a parallel claim against a Samsung subsidiary in the United States. For the broader wearables and app-ecosystem industry, the outcome will be a closely watched test of just how much liability a platform maker bears for what third-party developers enable on its devices.

DLL Analysis: The Swatch v. Samsung dispute highlights the growing legal risks associated with digital platforms and third-party ecosystems. By seeking damages based on hypothetical licensing fees and the commercial value of its trademarks, Swatch emphasizes that trademark infringement extends beyond lost sales to encompass unauthorized exploitation of brand goodwill. The case also underscores the increasing responsibility of technology companies for infringing content made available through third-party applications on their devices. A substantial damages award could set an important precedent for platform liability, encouraging stronger oversight of app ecosystems and reinforcing the protection of luxury brands in the rapidly evolving wearable technology market. [Source]

Bacardi loses US appeal in long-running 'Havana Club' trademark dispute

In Bacardi & Co Ltd v. Squires, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1355, dealt Bacardi a significant blow, upholding the Cuban government's trademark rights to "Havana Club" rum in the United States. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Cuba's state-owned Cuba export, affirming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's 2016 decision to renew its "Havana Club" trademark. The court found that a retroactive OFAC license issued during the Obama administration legitimized Cuba export’s 2005 renewal attempt. Bacardi, which acquired the original Havana Club brand from Cuban exiles and has sold the rum in the U.S. since 1995, called the ruling deeply unfair, arguing the trademark was "stolen" during the Cuban Revolution. However, Bacardi may have the last word i.e., 2024 law now bars U.S. agencies from recognizing trademarks seized by the Cuban government, potentially blocking any future renewal when the mark expires this month

DLL Analysis: The Bacardi v. Squires decision illustrates the complex intersection of trademark law, foreign policy, and geopolitical considerations. By upholding Cuba export’s renewal of the “Havana Club” trademark, the Fourth Circuit affirmed that a retroactive OFAC license validated the renewal despite longstanding U.S. sanctions. The ruling reinforces that administrative compliance can preserve trademark rights even in politically sensitive contexts. However, the enactment of the 2024 legislation prohibiting U.S. recognition of trademarks confiscated by the Cuban government may significantly alter the legal landscape, potentially preventing future renewals. The case demonstrates how trademark rights can be shaped not only by intellectual property principles but also by evolving legislative and diplomatic policies. [Source]

Litigation Highlights & Practice Area

India

M/s SBS Biotech & Ors. v. Union of India, Himachal Pradesh High Court, 22 June 2026

In a significant pharma-regulatory prosecution matter, the Himachal Pradesh High Court considered petitions filed by M/s SBS Biotech and others seeking quashing of criminal complaint proceedings initiated by a Drugs Inspector, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, Sub Zone Baddi. The complaint arose under Sections 18(a)(i), 18(a)(vi) read with Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, along with provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The case involved allegations concerning manufacture and regulatory compliance of pharmaceutical products, and the petitioners challenged their arraignment and the consequential proceedings on grounds including legality, jurisdiction and settled principles governing prosecution under the Drugs and Cosmetics framework.

DLL Analysis: This decision is important for pharmaceutical manufacturers because it highlights the continuing criminal-law exposure arising from alleged non-compliance under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case also shows that courts may closely examine whether prosecution against companies and their officers has been properly initiated, whether statutory requirements have been followed, and whether individual liability has been adequately made out. For life sciences companies, the practical takeaway is that regulatory documentation, quality-control records, manufacturing licences, inspection responses and officer-role mapping should be maintained with prosecution risk in mind, not merely for routine compliance. [Source]

Puneet Kukreja, Proprietor of M/s Caregem 9 Wellness v. M/s Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi District Commercial Court, 8 June 2026

The Delhi District Commercial Court decided a commercial recovery dispute involving supply of pharmaceutical excipients used in the preparation of medical products. The plaintiff, proprietor of M/s Caregem 9 Wellness, claimed recovery of over Rs. 56 lakhs from Medipol Pharmaceuticals India Pvt. Ltd., a pharmaceutical products manufacturer, arising from purchase orders and tax invoices for excipients such as Polyethylene Glycol 400 IP, Polyethylene Glycol 4000 IP, Polyethylene Glycol 6000 IP and Cetodet 500. The judgment is relevant to life sciences supply-chain contracting because it concerns credit-period arrangements, invoice-based claims and commercial recovery between suppliers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

DLL Analysis: This is not a patent or trademark dispute; it is highly relevant for the pharmaceutical sector because excipients are critical inputs in drug manufacturing and supply-chain reliability directly affects production continuity. The matter reinforces the importance of clear purchase-order terms, credit timelines, delivery documentation, invoice reconciliation and written acknowledgement of liability in pharma supply contracts. For pharmaceutical companies and excipient suppliers, the case is a reminder that commercial documentation can become decisive evidence in litigation, especially where long credit cycles and repeated purchase orders are involved. [Source]

Ravi Kumar Prajapati @ Ravi Prajapati v. State of Bihar, Patna High Court, 23 June 2026

The Patna High Court dealt with an anticipatory bail petition arising from offences registered under provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the NDPS Act. The prosecution case involved seizure from a truck of large quantities of codeine-based cough syrup, including Eskuf Codeine Syrup, along with other liquid substances, documents, a mobile phone and cash. The matter reflects the overlap between pharmaceutical regulation and narcotics enforcement where controlled or codeine-containing medicinal products are allegedly transported or handled in circumstances attracting criminal investigation.

DLL Analysis: This case is significant for pharmaceutical distribution and logistics because it demonstrates how medicinal products, particularly codeine-based cough syrups, can fall within both drug-regulatory and narcotics-control scrutiny. The decision shows that the legal risk is not limited to manufacturers; transporters, owners, distributors and intermediaries may also face investigation where documentation, licensing, route control or possession appears questionable. Life sciences companies dealing with scheduled formulations should implement robust supply-chain due diligence, transporter verification, batch documentation, e-way bill controls, stock reconciliation and compliance checks to reduce exposure under both the Drugs and Cosmetics regime and NDPS enforcement. [Source]

Forschung vs. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (Calcutta High Court)

On 17 June 2026, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Fraunhofer Gesellschaft challenging the Controller’s rejection of Patent Application No. 202137013369 titled “Method for Stimulating the Growth of Biomass in a Liquid Inside a Bioreactor.” The patent application had been refused under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 for insufficient disclosure, lack of clarity, and non-compliance with the requirements of Section 10. The appellant argued that the Controller had improperly introduced new objections at the hearing stage and that the specification sufficiently enabled a person skilled in the art to perform the invention. Rejecting these contentions, the Court held that the complete specification contained vague and overbroad expressions, lacked essential operational details, failed to provide an enabling disclosure across the claimed scope, and did not satisfy the statutory requirements of clarity, definiteness, and sufficiency. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Controller’s order and dismissed the appeal.

DLL Analysis: The decision reinforces the strict disclosure standards under Section 10 of the Patents Act and emphasizes that a patent specification must clearly and completely enable a skilled person to perform the invention. The Court reaffirmed that broad or ambiguous claim language, unsupported by sufficient technical detail, can justify refusal of a patent application. The ruling also highlights the importance of providing adequate experimental data, operational parameters, and clear claim boundaries during patent prosecution, particularly in biotechnology and life sciences inventions. [Source]

Microtek International Private Limited v. Sukhveer Singh & Ors. CS(COMM) 660/2026

An inverter and battery major Microtek International secured an interim injunction against a coordinated social media campaign it says was designed to defame its brand. The campaign, launched via WhatsApp and Facebook from May 14, 2026, allegedly made a series of false claims, including that 10,000 Microtek batteries had been seized by court order (the actual seizure involved roughly 1,200 batteries of various brands), that Microtek's products were of inferior quality, and that a separate design-infringement suit had been filed against Microtek when the company was not even a party to those proceedings. The context makes this more than a routine defamation case: the defendants include former Microtek directors and members of a promoter family that holds a 50% stake in the company, several of whom were part of Microtek's own management until late 2024. Microtek alleged that its rival Okaya Power and its dealer network weaponised a court order from an unrelated design suit, one that had restrained certain battery manufacturers, to mislead Microtek's customers, dealers, and distributors. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ordered the named defendants, primarily Okaya dealers and area managers, to take down the offending advertisements within 24 hours and restrained them from publishing similar material going forward. The case is a sharp reminder that corporate separations and promoter exit can turn into full-blown trademark and reputation battles, and that social media has become the favoured battleground.

DLL Analysis: The Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. v. Sukhveer Singh & Ors. case highlights the growing importance of protecting corporate reputation in the digital age. By granting an interim injunction against the dissemination of allegedly false and misleading social media content, the Delhi High Court recognized that online campaigns could cause immediate and irreparable harm to a company's goodwill and commercial relationships. The ruling reinforces that trademark protection extends beyond preventing misuse of a brand name to safeguarding its reputation from coordinated disparagement. It also signals that courts are prepared to impose swift remedies against misleading digital advertising, particularly where competitors or former insiders exploit litigation-related information to influence consumers and trade channels. [Source]

Piyush Sapra & Anr. v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors. CS(COMM) 643/2026

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction against multiple third-party sellers who exploited Flipkart's "Latching On" feature to piggyback on the goodwill of men's shapewear brand SHAPERMEN. The feature, designed to let sellers offer alternative options on an existing product listing, also automatically carries over the original listing's images, brand name, and product descriptions, a loophole that unauthorized sellers allegedly used to sell unbranded products under SHAPERMEN's commercial identity, often at significantly lower prices. Test purchases conducted in May 2026 confirmed the problem: the products received bore no SHAPERMEN branding, labels, or inserts whatsoever. Justice Tejas Karia, finding a prima facie case of passing off, restrained the sellers from using the brand's marks, photographs, or listing content, and directed Flipkart to delist the impugned listings, and to act within 72 hours on any future "latching on" violations flagged by the brand. The ruling is a notable signal to e-commerce platforms that their own technical features can attract judicial scrutiny when weaponised for trademark infringement, and that compliance obligations don't end at merely hosting listings.

DLL Analysis: The Delhi High Court's decision in the SHAPERMEN case underscores the evolving responsibility of e-commerce platforms in preventing trademark infringement facilitated by their own marketplace features. By restraining unauthorized sellers from exploiting Flipkart's "Latching On" mechanism, the Court recognized that digital tools enabling sellers to leverage another brand's goodwill can amount to passing off and consumer deception. The direction requiring Flipkart to promptly remove infringing listings and respond to future complaints within 72 hours reflects a heightened expectation of platform diligence. The ruling reinforces that online marketplaces must proactively address misuse of their technological features to safeguard brand owners' rights and consumer trust. [Source]

Abbott Products Operations Ag... vs Menschlich Healthcare Opc Private Limited

On June 15, 2026, the Bombay High Court ordered the cancellation of the trademark "DUPHACHRIT”, holding that it was deceptively similar to Abbott’s long-standing family of "DUPHA" trademarks used for pharmaceutical products. The Court found that the mark was phonetically, visually, structurally, and aurally like Abbott’s registered marks, particularly "DUPHASTON”, and was likely to cause confusion among consumers. Noting that "DUPHA" is the distinctive source identifier of Abbott’s products and that the respondent failed to provide a credible explanation for adopting the prefix, the Court concluded that the impugned mark appeared to be an attempt to capitalize on Abbott’s reputation and goodwill built over several decades. Accordingly, the Court directed removal of the "DUPHACHRIT" trademark from the Register of Trademarks.

DLL Analysis: The Bombay High Court's decision to cancel the "DUPHACHRIT" trademark reaffirms the heightened standard of protection according to pharmaceutical trademarks, where even a likelihood of confusion can have serious public health implications. By recognizing "DUPHA" as the distinctive and source-identifying element of Abbott's family of marks, the Court emphasized that adoption of a deceptively similar prefix without a plausible explanation may indicate an intention to ride on the proprietor's goodwill. The ruling reinforces the principle that phonetic, visual, and structural similarities are sufficient to warrant cancellation where they are likely to mislead consumers, thereby strengthening trademark protection in the pharmaceutical sector. [Source]

Global Developments

Sandoz files FDA applications for generic versions of Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro and Zepbound, 30 June 2026

Sandoz announced on 29 June 2026 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepted for review two Abbreviated New Drug Applications for proposed generic versions of tirzepatide, covering the reference medicines Mounjaro® and Zepbound®. The proposed Sandoz products were developed in-house and seek approval for indications including type 2 diabetes, weight management and obesity-related obstructive sleep apnea. The development is significant because Mounjaro and Zepbound sit at the centre of the fast-growing GLP-1 market, where demand for obesity and diabetes treatments has surged globally. Sandoz stated that, subject to FDA approval, its generic tirzepatide could be among the first generic tirzepatide products available in the U.S. once the market forms.

DLL Analysis: Sandoz’s FDA filings mark an early but important regulatory step toward possible generic competition in one of the most commercially valuable pharmaceutical markets. For Eli Lilly, the development will likely sharpen reliance on a layered exclusivity strategy involving compound patents, formulation patents, delivery-device protections, manufacturing know-how and regulatory exclusivities. For generic companies, the key issues will include patent challenge strategy, launch-risk assessment, FDA approval timing and commercial readiness. The matter also has a broader public-health and access dimension. GLP-1 drugs have become central to treatment conversations around diabetes, obesity and weight-management care, but affordability remains a major concern. If generic pathways mature, the resulting competition could significantly affect pricing, patient access and future patent litigation in the metabolic-disease space. [Source]

Enanta Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer: Paxlovid-related patent dispute turns on one chemical drafting difference

On 23 June 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., affirming summary judgment that all claims of Enanta’s U.S. Patent No. 11,358,953 were invalid as anticipated. The patent concerned compounds and methods for inhibiting coronavirus replication, but the dispute turned on whether Enanta could claim priority to a provisional application that disclosed a C2-C12 alkyl range, while the later patent claimed C1-C12 alkyl. The Federal Circuit held that the provisional application did not provide written-description support for the later-claimed C1-C12 scope. As a result, Pfizer’s intervening public disclosure of nirmatrelvir, the active ingredient in Paxlovid, anticipated the claims and rendered them invalid.

DLL Analysis: This decision is a strong reminder that pharmaceutical patent disputes can turn on extremely precise drafting details. A single difference in chemical range language was enough to defeat Enanta’s priority claim and expose the patent to intervening prior art. In life sciences patent practice, provisional applications cannot be treated as informal placeholders because they may later become decisive for written-description support, priority entitlement and validity. For innovator pharmaceutical companies, the case reinforces the need for careful claim support from the earliest filing stage, including fallback positions, precise chemical definitions and representative disclosure across intended claim scope. For generic or rival companies, the ruling highlights the value of scrutinising priority chains and provisional disclosures when challenging high-value pharmaceutical patents. [Source]

Antares Therapeutics signs potential USD 1.9 billion oncology drug-discovery deal with Novartis

On 24 June 2026, Antares Therapeutics entered into a collaboration with Novartis that could be worth up to approximately USD 1.9 billion. Under the agreement, Antares will receive USD 105 million upfront and may receive up to USD 1.8 billion in additional payments linked to option exercise, development, regulatory and commercial milestones. Antares is also eligible for tiered royalties on global net sales of any medicines developed under the collaboration. The collaboration is focused on developing targeted small-molecule medicines against historically difficult or “undruggable” oncology targets. Antares will lead the research activities using its proprietary drug-discovery platform, while Novartis will have options to exercise rights over programmes emerging from the collaboration. The deal reflects Novartis’ continued interest in external innovation platforms capable of expanding its oncology pipeline.

DLL Analysis: The Antares-Novartis deal highlights the continued importance of external biotech innovation in big-pharma oncology pipelines. Large pharmaceutical companies increasingly rely on specialised biotech platforms to access difficult targets, novel mechanisms and early-stage discovery engines that may be difficult to develop entirely in-house. For Antares, the agreement provides both commercial validation of its discovery capabilities and a significant pathway for advancing oncology assets through a global pharmaceutical partner. From an IP standpoint, such collaborations require careful allocation of background IP, foreground inventions, target-specific discoveries, prosecution control, enforcement rights, milestone triggers, option rights and post-option ownership. The deal is also notable because Antares emerged from Scorpion Therapeutics, showing how biotech spinouts can preserve platform value and continue generating high-value collaborations after major asset transactions. Overall, the transaction reinforces the strategic value of platform-based oncology discovery and demonstrates how IP-backed biotech capabilities remain central to pharmaceutical deal-making. [Source]

Deezer launches free AI music detector for users of major streaming platforms - 11 June 2026

French streaming platform Deezer launched a free online AI music detector that allows users across around 20 major streaming platforms, including Spotify, Apple Music and YouTube Music, to scan their playlists for AI-generated tracks. Deezer stated that it now receives nearly 75,000 AI-generated tracks daily, representing more than 44% of all daily music deliveries to the platform, and that 43% of users joining Deezer from other platforms already have AI-generated tracks in their playlists. The tool forms part of Deezer’s broader AI transparency strategy. Deezer has already detected and labelled over 13.4 million AI-generated tracks in 2025, claims 99.8% accuracy for its detection system, and excludes flagged AI-generated tracks from algorithmic and editorial recommendations on its own platform. Deezer has also made its detection technology commercially available to the wider music ecosystem.

DLL Analysis: Deezer’s launch reflects the music industry’s shift from purely reactive copyright litigation to proactive technological enforcement. By enabling users to identify AI-generated tracks across platforms, Deezer is positioning transparency as a consumer-protection and rights-management tool. The move also highlights growing concerns around royalty dilution, algorithmic visibility and the displacement of human artists by synthetic music. As AI-generated music continues to scale, detection and labelling mechanisms may become essential industry standards for balancing innovation, copyright protection and consumer trust. [Source]

American Federation of Musicians sues Warner Music and Universal Music over AI training deals, 5 June 2026

The American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (AFM) filed a lawsuit against Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the labels licensed recordings featuring AFM-represented musicians to AI music companies Suno and Udio without compensating or crediting the musicians. The lawsuit arises from settlements and licensing deals that Warner and Universal reached with the AI companies after previously suing them for copyright infringement. AFM’s claim is based on its collective bargaining agreement with the labels. The union argues that licensing recorded performances for AI training and related exploitation constitutes a “new use” of the recordings, triggering compensation obligations for session musicians. AFM is seeking monetary relief and disclosure of which recordings were licensed or used in connection with AI training.

DLL Analysis: The AFM lawsuit exposes a key tension in the music industry’s AI strategy: labels may monetise AI licensing deals as copyright owners, while session musicians whose performances form part of those recordings may receive nothing unless their contracts expressly cover AI use. The case is therefore not only about copyright infringement, but about allocation of AI-generated licensing revenue under labour agreements. If AFM succeeds, future AI music licences may need to account for performers, session musicians and collective-bargaining rights, not merely label-owned master rights. [Source]

IP in the Wild - Pop Culture & Business

Bears QB Caleb Williams denied 'Iceman' product trademark

Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams has hit an early snag in his off-field brand-building efforts, with the USPTO initially rejecting his application to trademark "Iceman", his nickname for his cool-headed composure under pressure. The refusal, issued June 24, cited the likelihood of confusion with a 1988 trademark registration by LaCrosse Footwear, an Oregon-based brand, for insulated boots bearing the same name. The ruling is not final, and Williams' team has room to push back, notably, the LaCrosse "Iceman" boots appear to no longer be an active product, which could open the door for negotiation or a revised application. The broader context is worth noting that nearly two-thirds of trademark applications filed since January 1 this year have faced an initial denial, so Williams is far from alone in this predicament. He had sought exclusive branding rights across a wide range of merchandise, from clothing and footballs to water bottles, sunglasses, and trading cards. For an athlete of Williams' profile, securing nickname trademarks early is increasingly standard practice, the path to "Iceman" may just require a few more plays. [Source]

Louis Vuitton sues Live! Casino over allegedly infringing bag promotion, 3 June 2026

On 3 June 2026, Louis Vuitton filed a trademark lawsuit against Live! Casino & Hotel and related entities over an allegedly infringing promotional bag campaign. The dispute concerns casino promotional bags that allegedly copied or closely evoked Louis Vuitton’s well-known luxury trade dress, including monogram-style visual elements associated with the brand. The case is notable because the allegedly infringing use arose in a casino/hospitality promotion, not in ordinary fashion retail. This shows how luxury-brand enforcement is expanding into promotional merchandise, loyalty campaigns, event giveaways and hospitality marketing, where third parties may use fashion-inspired designs to attract consumer attention. The dispute also reinforces that promotional items are not legally risk-free simply because they are giveaways rather than products sold in stores. Where a giveaway imitates a famous luxury brand’s visual identity, it can still raise issues of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false association and unfair commercial advantage. [Source]

Transactional IPs

Hanno IP’s Strategic Acquisition of Hikvision Patent Assets Strengthens AI and Imaging IP Portfolio

In June 2026, Hanno IP announced its second strategic acquisition of patent assets from Hikvision, further expanding its intellectual property portfolio in imaging, video analytics, sensor interfaces, and device-level interconnect technologies. The transaction builds on Hanno IP’s earlier acquisition of Hikvision patents and adds technologies relating to edge video analytics, object tracking, imaging sensor calibration, low-light image enhancement, multi-camera panorama stitching, neural network acceleration, and camera-module interconnects. The acquisition enhances Hanno IP’s licensing and commercialization capabilities across industries including artificial intelligence, computer vision, smartphones, automotive imaging, cloud video analytics, and edge computing. By securing a broader portfolio of AI, imaging, and connectivity patents, Hanno IP strengthens its position in the patent monetization and licensing market while increasing the strategic value of its technology and intellectual property assets. [Source]

Onsemi’s Strategic Acquisition of Synaptics to Advance Physical AI and Intelligent Systems

In June 2026, onsemi entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Synaptics Incorporated in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $7 billion. The acquisition is designed to accelerate onsemi’s transition from a provider of power and sensing technologies to a leader in intelligent systems for Physical AI. By combining onsemi’s strengths in power semiconductors, sensing technologies, automotive electronics, and AI infrastructure with Synaptics’ portfolio of Edge AI processors, human-machine interface technologies, wireless connectivity solutions, and embedded software, the transaction brings together complementary technology and intellectual property assets. The deal is expected to position the combined company at the intersection of the four key pillars of Physical AI Power, Sense, Connected Compute, and Control-enabling intelligent machines to perceive, process, and respond to the physical world. Through the acquisition, onsemi aims to expand its technology portfolio, strengthen its IP-driven innovation capabilities, and increase its addressable market across automotive, industrial automation, robotics, and intelligent edge computing applications. [Source]

Innovation Spotlight

Tower Semiconductor and Marvell Surpass Five Million Coherent Photonic IC Shipments

In June 2026, Tower Semiconductor and Marvell announced the shipment of more than five million coherent photonic integrated circuits (PICs), marking a significant milestone in high-performance optical communication technology. These advanced silicon photonics devices are designed to address the growing bandwidth and energy-efficiency requirements of AI-driven data center interconnect (DCI) networks. Coherent PICs represent a sophisticated engineering achievement, requiring precise control of light phase and polarization, along with stringent design and manufacturing processes. The collaboration has supported the development of next-generation technologies, including the integration of non-silicon materials, 3D integration of electronics, and advanced optical packaging techniques such as V-Grooves. The milestone highlights continued innovation in semiconductor engineering, silicon photonics, and high-speed communications infrastructure, reinforcing the role of advanced photonic systems in powering modern AI and data center applications. [Source]

Upcoming IP Events

International Conferences on:

• IP Valuation, Commercial Exploitation, and Economic Impact (ICIPVCEI)- Jaipur, India- August 15, 2026. [Source]
• IP Risk Management, Enforcement, and Anti-Counterfeiting Strategies (ICIPRMEACS)- Bhopal, India- August15, 2026. [Source]
• IP Policy, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance (ICIPGRC)- Cannes, France- August 17, 2026. [Source]
• Design Rights, Industrial Designs, and Innovation Protection (ICDRIDIP)- Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic- August 18, 2026. [Source]
• Intellectual Property Rights in Global Business Practices (ICIPRGBP)- Kharkiv, Ukraine- August 18, 2026. [Source]
• Trademark Law, Brand Protection, and Enforcement Strategies (ICTLBPES)- Angeles City, Philippines- August 18, 2026 [Source]
• Licensing, Commercialization, and IP Strategy Development (ICLCIPSD)- Utheemu, Maldives- August 18, 2026. [Source]
• Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Trends, and Future Directions (ICIPRPTFD)- Rogner, Albania- August 18, 2026. [Source]
• IP Policy, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance (ICIPGRC)- Naples, Italy- August 19, 2026. [Source]
• Copyright Law and Creative Industry Management (ICCL-CIM)- Wellington, New Zealand- August 20, 2026. [Source]
• Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Trends, and Future Directions (ICIPRPTFD)- Bruges, Belgium- August 20, 2026. [Source]
• Technology Transfer, Knowledge Sharing, and IP Commercialization (ICTTKSIP)- Cannes, France- August 21, 2026. [Source]
• Intellectual Property Education, Training, and Professional Development (ICIETPD)- Taipei City, Taiwan- August 22, 2026. [Source]
• Copyright Law and Creative Industry Management (ICCL-CIM)- Kolkata, India- August 22, 2026. [Source]
• IP Litigation, Dispute Resolution, and Legal Precedents (ICIPLDRLP)- Bhubaneswar, India- August 22, 2026. [Source]
• Licensing, Commercialization, and IP Strategy Development (ICLCIPSD)- Leipzig, Germany- August 24, 2026. [Source]
• Trademark Law, Brand Protection, and Enforcement Strategies (ICTLBPES)- Columbus, USA- August 24, 2026. [Source]
• Open Innovation, Licensing Models, and IP Strategy (ICIOILMIPS)- Mecca, Saudi Arabia- August 25, 2026. [Source]
• Intellectual Property Rights in Global Business Practices (ICIPRGBP)- Osaka, Japan- August 27, 2026. [Source]
• Copyright Law and Creative Industry Management (ICCL-CIM)- Barcelona, Spain- August 28, 2026. [Source]

Contributors to the newsletter

Mohit Porwal (Associate Partner)

Abhimanyu Singh (Vice President - Electronics and Engineering Intellectual Property)

Nisha Wadhwa (Principal Associate)

Dr. Rinky Rani (Senior Patent Engineer)

Neha Sharma (Senior Patent Engineer)

Manoj Singh Kathayat (Senior Patent Engineer)

Nishant Veer Vikram Singh (Patent Engineer)

Awertika Shrivastava (Associate)

Isha Bhatia (Trainee Engineer)