Top 10 IP Cases in India and Globally: August 2026 Roundup

August 2026 was a landmark month for intellectual property law. Indian courts issued rare, doctrine-shaping guidance on patent examination and trial procedure, while a major U.S. appellate ruling reshaped how "prior art" priority dates work under the America Invents Act (AIA). This roundup breaks down the ten most important IP developments from the month what happened, why it matters, and who should be paying attention.

1. T-Mobile International AG v. Controller General of Patents: India Gets Its First "Mental Acts" Test

The background: T-Mobile filed an Indian patent application in 2008 for a method to optimise mobile terminal operation times. The Patent Office refused it in 2016 under Sections 3(k) and 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970,  the statutory exclusions covering computer programs and "mere schemes, rules, or methods of performing mental acts."

The ruling: On appeal, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court laid down a structured seven-step framework for examining Section 3(m) objections. The Court held that the mental-acts inquiry must look at the claim as a whole rather than isolating individual steps, and that it must never be conflated with the separate novelty and inventive-step requirements under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Act.

The practical test: If a claim can be infringed simply by a person thinking, reasoning, calculating, judging, or deciding, it monopolises a mental act and is excluded from patentability. But the exclusion does not apply where the claim, taken as a whole, requires physical means integral to its performance, involves genuine hardware-software interaction, or produces a tangible technical output. The Court also clarified that a true product claim an apparatus or device defined by its physical features was never a "scheme, rule or method" to begin with, and cannot be objected to under Section 3(m) at all.

Why it matters for business: This is the clearest, most usable guidance India's patent system has produced on mental-act objections. Any SaaS, fintech, or software-heavy applicant filing in India now has a concrete, illustrated framework to draft claims around, and patent examiners finally have a consistent standard to apply, which should reduce arbitrary refusals across the board.

2. Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings: Supreme Court Weighs Seed Rights Against Corporate IP

The background: This case is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute over PepsiCo India's registration of its FL 2027 potato variety, used to produce Lay's chips, under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001. Farmers' rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti had sought to revoke the registration after PepsiCo filed and later withdrew infringement suits against Gujarat farmers.

The ruling: A Supreme Court bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran upheld PepsiCo's registration, declining to revoke it under Section 34(h) of the PPVFR Act merely because the company had sued farmers. At the same time, the Court clarified that individual farmers sued by PepsiCo in the future can still invoke statutory protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act, which allows farmers to save, use, sow, resow, and exchange seed.

Why it matters: The judgment draws a sharp distinction between the validity of a plant variety registration and the conduct of the rights-holder in enforcing it. Litigation against farmers, even repeated litigation, is not, on its own, grounds to strip a company of its registration. At the same time, the Court preserved the farmer-protection provision as a real, usable shield for anyone who actually gets sued.

Why it matters for business: For agri-biotech and seed companies, this is a broadly favourable outcome: registration security is not automatically threatened by enforcement history. For farmers' rights advocates, including Kuruganti herself, who called the verdict "deeply disappointing" it illustrates the limits of using revocation proceedings to check aggressive corporate litigation.

3. Kent RO Systems v. Kent Cables: Supreme Court Declines to Disturb an Interim Order

The background: Kent RO Systems, known for water purifiers, and Kent Cables, which had used the "KENT" mark for wires and cables since the 1980s, have been locked in a trademark dispute since 2022 over Kent RO's attempt to sell electric fans under the same mark.

The ruling: The Delhi High Court found that Kent RO had failed to satisfy the three-part test for an interim injunction prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm and upheld the restraint against Kent RO selling fans under "KENT," having found Kent Cables demonstrated prior use of the mark in that specific product category. The Supreme Court subsequently refused to stay that order, declining to interfere with the Delhi High Court's discretionary interim ruling.

Why it matters: This reinforces just how difficult it is to reverse an interim injunction once granted, particularly at the Supreme Court level, where courts will only interfere if the underlying order is arbitrary, perverse, capricious, or contrary to settled law.

Why it matters for business: For litigators, the lesson is clear: the fight to prevent an adverse interim order has to be won early, at the Single Judge stage. Appellate review offers little practical relief once an injunction is in place, absent a clear legal error.

4. MHG IP Holding (Minor Hotels) v. Anantara Galleria: Brand Protection Beyond the Original Industry

The background: MHG IP Holding Singapore, part of the Minor Hotel Group operator of over 50 luxury ANANTARA hotels, resorts, and spas worldwide, discovered an Ahmedabad real estate project marketing itself as "Anantara Galleria" under the domain "anantara.life."

The ruling: Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using "Anantara Galleria," "Anantara," or the disputed domain in connection with real estate, hospitality, or residential services. The Court found the use of deceptively similar marks appeared aimed at cashing in on the plaintiff's established goodwill and misrepresenting a commercial affiliation that did not exist.

Why it matters: This is a clean example of cross-sector brand dilution; the defendant was not a competing hotel chain, but a real estate developer trading on hospitality-brand goodwill. It confirms Indian courts will grant fast, ex parte relief to well-known marks facing look-alike use in unrelated industries when the intent to free-ride is clear.

Why it matters for business: Useful precedent for any brand owner facing copycat use of its mark outside its core sector courts are willing to move quickly, without waiting for a full hearing, when similarity and bad intent are evident on the face of the record.

5. Empee Distilleries v. Universal Spirits: Trademark Fallout From a Corporate Insolvency

The background: Empee Distilleries and Universal Spirits both trace back to the same corporate group. During Empee Distilleries' insolvency resolution process, the "Marco Polo" trade name was transferred to Empee Distilleries under the approved resolution plan.

The ruling: The Madras High Court restrained Universal Spirits from manufacturing, marketing, or selling liquor under "Classic Marco Polo Deluxe Brandy" and "Marco Polo Deluxe XXX Rum," finding that Universal Spirits knew the trade name had been transferred to Empee Distilleries. The Court also directed Universal Spirits to submit accounts of its manufacture and sales, and to hand over unsold stock within four weeks.

Why it matters: This case shows how brand-ownership disputes can resurface years after a corporate restructuring; a trademark asset transferred through an NCLT-approved resolution plan can still be actively contested by an affiliated entity that simply kept using it.

Why it matters for business: A cautionary tale for any company going through insolvency resolution: intellectual property assets need to be clearly inventoried and transferred, and affiliated group entities must stop using a transferred mark immediately, or risk exactly this kind of injunction and accounting order.

6. Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand: Supreme Court Widens the Scope of Cross-Examination

The background: In a trademark infringement suit over the "BABA" brand, a defendant sought to question the plaintiff about documentary proof of how long it had used the mark. The Kerala High Court blocked the question because the defendant's own written statement was not on record.

The ruling: The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when a plaintiff affirms trademark infringement as the foundation of its claim, the defendant is entitled to question the plaintiff on documents substantiating the claimed period of brand use even if the defendant's written statement is not formally on record. The Court set aside the Kerala High Court's order and directed the trial to proceed after recalling the plaintiff to answer the question, while expressly declining to comment on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Why it matters: This is a procedural ruling with outsized practical value. Indian courts have been inconsistent about how much latitude a defendant has to test a plaintiff's foundational claims like first use of a mark when the defendant's own pleadings are incomplete or off the record.

Why it matters for business: For litigators on either side of a trademark dispute, this meaningfully strengthens the ability to probe a plaintiff's prior-use claims at trial, even from a procedurally awkward position, as a genuinely useful precedent on cross-examination and trial procedure.

7. T-Series / Vishesh Films "Aashiqui" Dispute: High-Visibility Entertainment IP

The background: T-Series' upcoming Kartik Aaryan and Sai Pallavi film was originally titled "Tu Hi Aashiqui," prompting a trademark infringement suit from Mukesh Bhatt's Vishesh Films, the registered proprietor of the "Aashiqui" and "Aashiqui Ke Liye" Q marks tied to the 1990 and 2013 franchise films.

The development: T-Series told the Delhi High Court it had renamed the film "Tu Meri Zindagi Hai" in an effort to resolve the dispute, but the parties could not fully settle; they disagreed over how far the proposed consent terms should extend, and Justice Jyoti Singh directed further negotiation. Separately, T-Series filed a challenge under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act against the "Aashiqui" registrations, arguing that its original co-production agreement with Vishesh Films entitled it to joint ownership of IP arising from the first two films, including the title itself.

Why it matters: Beyond the celebrity headlines, this is a genuine trademark ownership dispute rooted in a decades-old co-production agreement, proof that joint-venture IP arrangements from the 1990s can still generate live, high-stakes litigation today.

Why it matters for business: High-reach content for general audiences, but the underlying lesson for entertainment and media clients is durable: co-production and joint-development agreements need explicit, unambiguous IP ownership clauses, because ambiguity tends to resurface decades later, at the worst possible commercial moment right before release.

8. Dabur "Cool King Thanda Tael" v. Emami: Judicial Hierarchy Limits on Modifying an Injunction

The background: The Delhi High Court's Division Bench upheld a January 2026 interim injunction restraining Dabur from selling its "Cool King Thanda Tael" cooling oil in packaging found deceptively similar to Emami's long-established Navratna Oil trade dress.

The dispute over stock: Dabur later sought permission from a Single Judge to sell off stock manufactured before the injunction. The Single Judge granted this, subject to conditions. Emami challenged that order, arguing a Single Judge could not modify an injunction that had already been affirmed on appeal.

The ruling: The Division Bench agreed with Emami, holding that once an injunction is affirmed by an appellate court, the judicial hierarchy requires the subordinate court to give full effect to that determination rather than pass any inconsistent order; any relaxation or variation could only be sought from the Division Bench or a higher court.

Why it matters: This is a clean statement on judicial hierarchy that reaches well beyond the underlying trade dress dispute: once an appellate bench affirms an injunction, the trial court that originally granted it loses the power to unilaterally vary its terms.

Why it matters for business: Companies operating under an injunction and their counsel need to know exactly which court to approach for any modification. Returning to the original judge after an appellate court has affirmed the order is procedurally futile, as Dabur discovered here.

9. Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology: Federal Circuit Raises the Bar for Provisional-Date Prior Art

The background: Align Technology challenged a Dental Monitoring patent covering dental-arch image acquisition and analysis in an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), relying in part on a reference called "Carrier." Carrier's status as prior art depended on whether it could claim the filing date of an earlier provisional application.

The PTAB's approach: Relying on its own precedential decision in Penumbra Inc. v. RapidPulse, the Board held that a reference need only satisfy "ministerial requirements" under Sections 119 and 120 to claim a provisional's filing date without needing to show the provisional provided written-description support for the reference's own claims. On that basis, the Board found Dental Monitoring's claims obvious.

The Federal Circuit's ruling: The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's decision, rejecting the "ministerial requirements" standard and effectively overruling Penumbra. The Court held that a reference must satisfy the same rule established in Dynamic Drinkware v. National Graphics: the provisional application must provide actual written-description support under Section 112(a) for at least one claim of the reference patent, not merely describe the same subject matter.

Why it matters: This is outcome-determinative in crowded technology fields. Moving a prior art reference's effective date forward or backward by even a few months can decide whether it qualifies as prior art at all, whether it can be combined in an obviousness challenge, and whether an entire validity position survives.

Why it matters for business: Parties in pending IPRs that relied on a provisional or earlier application under a purely "ministerial" theory should immediately reassess whether their record includes the now-required claim-support showing. This is immediately actionable for anyone with a live IPR, and it's a strong signal to patent prosecutors: provisional application quality now matters even more for downstream prior-art strategy.

10. AI Training-Data Litigation: Publishers Target Shadow Libraries While Authors' Case Against Big AI Narrows

The WeLib lawsuit: A group of major publishers including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, and Simon & Schuster sued the shadow library WeLib in the Southern District of New York, alleging it operates as an illegal digital library hosting more than 43 million books and 98 million academic papers. The suit follows a $19.5 million default judgment the same publishers won against a related shadow library, Anna's Archive, and alleges WeLib copied much of that site's collection and code. The complaint further accuses WeLib of soliciting payments from AI companies in exchange for high-speed access to its pirated content specifically for AI training.

The Anthropic multi-defendant case: Separately, a group of authors led by Pulitzer Prize winner John Carreyrou sued Anthropic, Google, OpenAI, Meta, xAI, Perplexity, Apple, and Nvidia together in a single action, seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work from each company. A federal judge severed the case, finding no conspiracy allegation sufficient to join competing AI developers that trained on different repositories at different times. Claims against most defendants were dismissed without prejudice to individual refiling, while the case proceeds against Anthropic alone. Anthropic has since moved to dismiss on two grounds: that the plaintiffs fail to allege Anthropic actually copied their specific works, and that two of the six plaintiffs lack standing to sue.

Why it matters: Together, these cases show the AI-copyright fight splitting into two distinct fronts: liability for the shadow libraries supplying pirated training data, and liability for the AI companies using it. Courts are increasingly unwilling to treat a shared data source as sufficient grounds to join unrelated corporate defendants into one mega-lawsuit.

Why it matters for business: This is the single most consequential ongoing story for AI and IP. For AI developers, it underscores the growing importance of documenting training-data provenance. For publishers and authors, it reveals a two-pronged litigation strategy: attack the source, then attack the user, that is likely to be replicated against other shadow libraries and other AI labs in the months ahead.

Key Takeaways

• India's Delhi High Court has, for the first time, set out a detailed seven-step test for patent "mental acts" objections under Section 3(m) — a major win for clarity in software and SaaS patent prosecution.

• The Supreme Court upheld PepsiCo's potato variety registration while preserving farmers' statutory right to invoke protection if sued — a nuanced middle ground in the seed sovereignty debate.

• Interim injunctions remain extremely difficult to reverse on appeal in India, as shown by both the Kent RO and Dabur rulings.

• Trademark protection can extend well beyond a brand's original industry, as confirmed in the Anantara real estate case.

• Corporate insolvency and restructuring can leave lingering trademark disputes between affiliated entities, as in the Empee Distilleries case.

• The Supreme Court has expanded defendants' cross-examination rights in trademark suits, even where their own pleadings are incomplete.

• The Federal Circuit's Dental Monitoring ruling raises the bar for using provisional applications to establish prior art dates under the AIA — a significant, immediately actionable development for pending IPRs.

• AI copyright litigation is bifurcating into shadow-library suits and AI-company suits, with courts resisting attempts to bundle unrelated AI developers into single actions.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

1. What is the Section 3(m) "mental acts" exclusion in Indian patent law? Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes from patentability "a mere scheme, rule, or method of performing a mental act." The Delhi High Court's ruling in T-Mobile International AG v. Controller General of Patents laid down the first detailed seven-step framework for applying this exclusion.

2. Can a patent claim be rejected under Section 3(m) if it uses a computer? Not automatically. The Delhi High Court clarified that computer-implemented claims should be evaluated separately under Section 3(k), and that claims requiring physical means, hardware-software interaction, or tangible output generally fall outside the Section 3(m) mental-act exclusion.

3. Can farmers still use PepsiCo's protected potato variety after the Supreme Court ruling? The Supreme Court upheld PepsiCo's registration but clarified that farmers sued by PepsiCo can invoke statutory protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act, which covers saving, using, sowing, resowing, and exchanging seed.

4. Why did the Supreme Court refuse to stay the Kent RO trademark order? The Supreme Court found no error in the Delhi High Court's interim order and applied the settled principle that appellate courts should not disturb a discretionary interim injunction unless it is arbitrary, perverse, capricious, or contrary to law.

5. Can a well-known trademark be protected outside its original industry? Yes. In the Anantara Galleria case, the Delhi High Court restrained a real estate project from using a hospitality brand's name, showing that well-known marks can receive protection against dilution in unrelated sectors.

6. What happens to a trademark during a company's insolvency resolution? Trademarks and trade names can be transferred as part of an approved resolution plan, as happened with the "Marco Polo" brand in the Empee Distilleries case. Affiliated entities that continue using a transferred mark without authorisation can still face injunctions.

7. Can a defendant cross-examine a plaintiff if their own written statement isn't on record? Yes, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand. A defendant can question a plaintiff on documents supporting a claim central to the plaintiff's own case, even without a formal written statement on file.

8. Why did T-Series rename its Kartik Aaryan film? T-Series changed the title from "Tu Hi Aashiqui" to "Tu Meri Zindagi Hai" to help resolve a trademark dispute with Vishesh Films, which holds registered rights over the "Aashiqui" mark tied to its earlier franchise films.

9. Can a Single Judge modify an injunction that has already been upheld on appeal? No. The Delhi High Court held in the Dabur v. Emami case that once an injunction is affirmed by an appellate bench, a subordinate court cannot modify it — any variation must be sought from the appellate court or a higher court.

10. What did the Federal Circuit decide in Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology? The Federal Circuit held that a patent reference can only claim an earlier provisional application's filing date for prior-art purposes if the provisional provides actual written-description support for at least one claim of the reference — not merely because it describes the same subject matter.

11. Why does the Dental Monitoring ruling matter for pending patent disputes? It overturns the PTAB's more lenient "ministerial requirements" standard, meaning parties relying on provisional filing dates to establish prior art may need to revisit whether their evidence actually meets the stricter written-description requirement.

12. What is WeLib and why are publishers suing it? WeLib is a shadow library site alleged to host over 43 million pirated books and 98 million academic papers. Major publishers sued it in the Southern District of New York, alleging it supplies pirated content to AI companies for training purposes.

13. Is Anthropic still facing the multi-defendant AI copyright lawsuit? The original multi-defendant case brought by author John Carreyrou and others was severed by a federal judge, with claims against most defendants dismissed without prejudice. The case continues against Anthropic alone, which has moved to dismiss on standing and copying-allegation grounds.

14. What's the difference between the WeLib case and the Anthropic case? The WeLib case targets the shadow library that allegedly supplies pirated training data, while the Anthropic case targets an AI company directly over its use of that data. Together they represent two separate fronts in ongoing AI copyright litigation.

15. Are these court rulings final? No. Several of these matters — including the T-Series/Aashiqui dispute, the Dabur/Emami stock dispute, and the AI copyright cases — remain in interim or pending stages. Readers should track primary sources for outcomes.

© 2025. All rights reserved.