Monthly IPR Roundup: February 2026

United States

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. vs. Amarin Pharma, Inc.

Case No. 24-889 | Lower court citation: 2024 WL 3000542 (Fed. Cir. 2024)

The dispute arose from a Hatch Waxman Act litigation concerning pharmaceutical patents held by Amarin Pharma, Inc. for its cardiovascular drug Vascepa (icosapent ethyl), used to reduce triglyceride levels and cardiovascular risk. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to market a generic version of Vascepa and provided a “skinny label” that carved out patented indications, while publishing press releases describing its product as a generic equivalent to Vascepa. Amarin sued for induced infringement, arguing that despite the carve out, Hikma's label, marketing statements, and product information encouraged physicians to prescribe the generic for the patented cardiovascular indication. The district court initially dismissed the complaint, holding that Hikma's label did not recommend the patented use and that public statements alone were insufficient to plausibly plead inducement. On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed in part, emphasizing that induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. Section 271(b) may be plausibly alleged where a generic manufacturer's communications, taken as a whole, could encourage infringing use, even if the label formally omits the patented indication.

The appellate court held that Amarin had plausibly alleged that Hikma's product labeling, which included clinical data tied to the patented use, together with press releases describing the drug as a generic version of Vascepa without clear limitation, could support an inference of intent to induce infringement. The decision clarified the pleading standards for induced infringement in the context of skinny labels, underscoring that courts must assess the totality of a generic manufacturer's conduct rather than focusing narrowly on label carve-outs. The ruling therefore reinstated Amarin's induced infringement claims and remanded the matter for further proceedings, significantly impacting pharmaceutical patent litigation by signaling that carveout strategies under the Hatch-Waxman framework will be closely scrutinized when surrounding promotional conduct arguably directs infringing use.

Ted Entertainment Inc. (H3h3 Productions) vs. Snap, Inc.

Case No. 2:26-cv-00754

The present case is filed in a U.S. federal district court wherein the plaintiff, h3h3 Productions (formally Ted Entertainment Inc.), brought a copyright infringement suit against Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, alleging that Snap's artificial intelligence and content features unlawfully reproduced, stored, and utilized copyrighted audiovisual works owned by the plaintiff. The dispute arose from Snap's deployment of AI-driven tools and content recommendation systems that allegedly incorporated clips and segments from h3h3's YouTube videos without authorization, either through automated scraping, user uploads, or backend training processes. The plaintiff contended that such use exceeded the scope of any platform safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), asserting that Snap had knowledge actual or constructive of infringing material and materially contributed to its dissemination by algorithmically promoting and transforming the content through AI filters and editing tools. Snap, in response, argued that it qualified for DMCA safe harbor protections as an online service provider, that any infringing uploads were user-generated content removed upon notice, and that the use of data for AI training constituted fair use because it was transformative, non-expressive, and necessary for technological innovation. The case raised complex and evolving questions at the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence, particularly whether machine-learning processes that ingest copyrighted works for training purposes amount to actionable copying, and whether algorithmic amplification can satisfy the intent requirement for secondary liability.

The court's consideration of motions to dismiss and preliminary relief focused on whether the plaintiff plausibly alleged volitional conduct by Snap and whether the complaint sufficiently distinguished between user misconduct and platform-level AI deployment. It signals growing judicial scrutiny over AI training practices and platform responsibility, highlighting the tension between innovation in generative and recommendation technologies and the enforcement of exclusive rights under U.S. copyright law.

U.S. Pat. No. 7,679,637 LLC vs. Google LLC

Case No. 24-1520 | Secondary citation: 2026 WL 192121

In the present case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the dispute centred on whether claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,679,637 directed to systems and methods for processing and filtering information in a networked environment, including a video-conferencing feature that allowed live meetings to be recorded and viewed later were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The plaintiff, a patent-holding entity formed around the '637 patent, sued Google LLC alleging that certain online data management and content processing functionalities infringed the patent. Google moved to dismiss, arguing that the asserted claims were invalid because they were directed to abstract ideas implemented using generic computer technology, thus failing the two-step framework established in the Alice/Mayo test. The Federal Circuit first examined whether the claims were directed to an abstract idea such as organizing, categorizing, or filtering information, or storing and replaying digital meetings and concluded that the core focus of the patent was on longstanding methods of information processing rather than a specific technological improvement to computer functionality. At step two, the court considered whether the claim elements, individually or as an ordered combination, contained an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

It determined that the additional limitations merely invoked conventional computer components and routine data processing steps without describing a concrete technical solution or improvement in computer performance. The court rejected the patentee's argument that the claimed architecture improved network efficiency, finding that the specification described results in functional terms rather than disclosing a particularized implementation. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed dismissal on the pleadings, holding the claims patent-ineligible under Section 101. The decision reinforces the stringent application of patent-eligibility standards to software and internet-related inventions, underscoring that claims framed at a high level of generality and implemented with generic computing infrastructure including features such as recording and replaying video conferences will likely fail unless they articulate a specific, non-conventional technological advance.

Concord Music Group, Inc. vs. Anthropic PBC

Case No. 5:26-cv-00880-SVK

In the present case the Concord Music Group, along with other major music publishers, brought a new copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lawsuit against Anthropic and individual defendants, asserting that Anthropic's generative AI systems including its flagship Claude model have infringed their exclusive rights by using copyrighted lyrics, compositions, and related music works without authorization to train its AI and by facilitating output of copyrighted material in responses to user prompts, conduct they say goes beyond lawful use and safe harbor protections. The suit follows an earlier related action (5:24cv03811) in which publishers alleged that Claude was trained and produced outputs containing copyrighted lyrics, leading to claims of direct, contributory, and vicarious infringement and alleged removal of copyright management information; recent developments have seen parts of those claims survive motions to dismiss and ongoing discovery and briefing on related procedural issues.

The 2026 complaint focuses on both continuing alleged infringement and additional conduct purportedly revealed in discovery such as unlawful mass downloading of copyrighted works from unauthorized sources for training heightening the stakes for AI developers' use of licensed and unlicensed content. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, damages under the Copyright Act, and remedies under the DMCA, arguing that Anthropic's actions harm rights holders' ability to control licensing, distribution, and exploitation of their works and that generic fair use defenses and safe harbor protections do not shield the company's extensive commercial use of protected material.

Sedlik vs. Von Drachenberg (Kat Von D)

Case No. 24-3367 | Secondary citation: 2026 WL 17166

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict in favor of celebrity tattoo artist Katherine Von Drachenberg and her business High Voltage Tattoo, Inc. in a copyright infringement dispute brought by photographer Jeffrey Sedlik over his iconic 1989 copyrighted photograph of jazz legend Miles Davis. Sedlik had sued Von Drachenberg after she used his photograph as a reference to ink a realistic tattoo on a friend and then posted images of the process and finished work on social media, claiming the tattoo, preparatory sketch, and related posts infringed his exclusive rights. After a full jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the jury found that Von Drachenberg's tattoo and related sketch and posts were not substantially similar in “total concept and feel” to Sedlik's photograph under the Ninth Circuit's intrinsic and extrinsic similarity tests, and that certain “process images” showing the photograph itself were fair use as a matter of copyright law. It was held that the district court's denial of posttrial motions need not be disturbed and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, thereby rejecting Sedlik's appeal of summary judgment denials and jury verdict challenges. The appellate decision also drew notable concurring commentary criticizing the Ninth Circuit's longstanding subjective “intrinsic test” for substantial similarity, suggesting it may lack sufficient legal rigor, but the panel affirmed that, in this case, Von Drachenberg's work did not infringe under existing copyright standards.

Europe

Lego A/S vs. EUIPO & Guangdong Qman Toys

Case T-628/24 | ECLI:EU:T:2026:6

The applicant (LEGO) challenged a decision by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and intervening party Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd in invalidity proceedings concerning one of LEGO's registered Community designs for a building block from a toy construction set. EUIPO's Third Board of Appeal had declared the design invalid on the ground that it lacked individual character, finding that the contested design did not produce a different overall impression on an informed user compared to an earlier design cited by Qman Toys, as required by Articles 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation No. 6/2002 on Community designs. The applicant argued that the differences in shape, proportions, studs' configuration and underside between its design and the earlier reference design were sufficient to create a distinct overall impression, but the General Court agreed with EUIPO that the similarities especially in essential visual features like the plate with cylindrical studs and surface reliefs outweighed the differences and that the earlier design's unseen underside could not be reliably distinguished.

The Court therefore dismissed the applicant's action, upheld the invalidity finding, and ordered the applicant to bear the costs. The judgment reinforces the stringent individual character standard in EU design law, under which minor variations that do not materially alter the overall visual effect on an informed user will not save a design from invalidity when closely similar prior designs exist.

Jean-Charles de Castelbajac vs. PMJC

Case C-733/23 | ECLI:EU:C:2026:15

The French fashion designer JeanCharles de Castelbajac challenged the way his own name was used as a trademark by PMJC SAS, the company that acquired rights in the “JC de Castelbajac” and “JeanCharles de Castelbajac” marks following his former fashion house's insolvency. After PMJC continued to use those patronymic marks on fashion and related products even after de Castelbajac's departure as artistic director, he counterclaimed for revocation of the trademarks on the ground that PMJC's use was misleading to the public, creating the impression that he remained involved in designing the goods when he was not. At first instance the revocation claim was dismissed, but the Paris Court of Appeal in 2022 agreed with de Castelbajac that PMJC's use had been deceptive, leading to revocation of the trademarks for the goods in dispute on that basis, and rejected arguments that merely using a designer's name is inherently nonmisleading. The French Cour de Cassation later referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify whether a surname trademark can be revoked when its use implies ongoing involvement by the designer after assignment. In December 2025 the CJEU ruled that EU trademark law does not preclude such revocation if the mark's use leads a reasonably informed consumer to mistakenly believe the designer still participates in creating the products.

The CJEU further stated that a name-mark is not inherently deceptive simply because the namesake has left. However, the court set a new limit: it is prohibited if the brand uses "contextual elements" (like specific social media posts or design signatures) that actively imply the designer's current personal involvement when that is no longer true.

Montepelayo, SLU vs. EUIPO

Case T-203/25 | ECLI:EU:T:2026:35

Montepelayo, SLU challenged a decision of the EUIPO refusing to register its application for the EU word mark “TELOTRON” in opposition proceedings brought by TRON Translationale Onkologie at the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. The application sought registration of TELOTRON for goods and services in Classes 5, 9, and 44, including medical preparations. Montepelayo argued that its mark should be accepted because differences in spelling and composition distinguished it from earlier marks incorporating “TRON”; however, EUIPO's Board of Appeal found that the contested sign was visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar to the earlier TRON marks and that the goods and services overlapped sufficiently to create a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of EU Regulation 2017/1001.

The General Court upheld EUIPO's assessment, confirming that the term “TRON,” understood by the relevant public in scientific and healthcare contexts, contributed to similarity when combined with the prefix “TELO,” and that such similarities could lead consumers or professionals in the medical field to believe both marks originated from the same or economically linked undertakings. On that basis, the Court dismissed Montepelayo's action for annulment and upheld the refusal to register the TELOTRON mark, reinforcing the strict application of the EU likelihood of confusion test in trademark opposition proceedings involving medical and pharmaceutical goods and services.

Puma SE vs. EUIPO

Case T-618/24 | ECLI:EU:T:2026:5

The Puma appealed a trademark opposition decision after the EUIPO's Opposition Division and Board of Appeal rejected its opposition to a Chinese applicant's EU figurative trademark for clothing and footwear that featured a curved stripe combined with an irregular triangle inside a black rectangle. Puma argued that the contested sign was confusingly similar to its earlier registered stripe based figurative marks, which form part of its longstanding “Formstripe” branding for apparel and footwear, and sought to prevent the rival mark's registration under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 alleging likelihood of confusion.

However, the General Court upheld EUIPO's decisions and dismissed Puma's action, concluding that although both signs incorporated an upward curving stripe element, the overall visual impression of the two sets of marks was sufficiently different that the average EU consumer would not be confused about the origin of the goods. The court emphasized that the comparison must be made on the basis of the marks as registered without regard to hypothetical orientations or use on products and found that the combination of shape, background and geometric features in the contested sign distinguished it from Puma's marks, precluding similarity under both Article 8(1)(b) and, consequently, Article 8(5) relating to reputation. As a result, Puma's appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that simple geometric elements like stripes, even on identical goods, may not by themselves trigger a likelihood of confusion if the overall impression of the marks registered depictions diverges.

China

Hangzhou Tech vs. Shanghai Tech

Intellectual Property Civil Final Judgment No. 2699

The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, in its second-instance ruling clarified the determination of allegedly infringing technical solutions in cases involving products sold with accompanying software. The Hangzhou-based company, patentee of an invention titled “Thermal Imaging Device and Thermal Imaging Method”, sued a Shanghai-based competitor, alleging that the defendant manufactured, offered for sale, and sold products that infringed its patent. The patent describes a thermal imaging device and method in which a reference image is compared to an acquired infrared thermal image to guide users in capturing high-quality images, with constitutive data related to the reference image being central to the patented technical solution. The first-instance court had dismissed the suit, holding that the software supplied with the product, which created ledger information imported via SD card, was not an inherent part of the accused product and therefore the accused product did not possess the patented features.

On appeal, the Supreme People's Court reversed, emphasizing that when a product manufacturer provides supporting software as an accessory, and the buyer combines it with the product, the combined product-plus-software technical solution is considered to be the one provided by the manufacturer. The court noted that technically, the same hardware can implement different functions depending on accompanying software, and therefore software functionality that enables the product to perform patented features. The Court also confirmed that data imported via external storage media falls within the patent's definition of constitutive data. Accordingly, the court ordered the Shanghai-based company to cease infringement and compensate Hangzhou Tech 600,000 yuan for economic losses and 111,450 yuan for reasonable expenses.

This ruling is significant because it establishes that in cases where a product's patented functions depend on manufacturer-provided software, the allegedly infringing technical solution includes both the hardware and accompanying software, clarifying how courts in China define infringement for integrated software-hardware inventions and strengthening protection for patentees in the technology sector.

A Japanese Research Institution vs. The State Intellectual Property Office and a Company in Jiangsu

Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Final Judgment No. 338

In Research Institution v. State Intellectual Property Office & Jiangsu Company, involving the invention patent titled “Lightemitting Element and Lighting Appliance” (Patent No. 200580005112.5), the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China reversed the lower court's judgment and the China National Intellectual Property Administration's (CNIPA) partial invalidation decision in a final administrative ruling issued in late 2025. The research institution (appellant and original patentee), based in Japan, had challenged CNIPA's Invalidation Request Examination Decision No. 46706, which declared claims 16 of the patent invalid for lack of inventiveness based on prior art including Japanese publications and technical literature. The first instance Beijing Intellectual Property Court upheld the invalidation, finding that the prior application Evidence 2 disclosed the same subject matter as claims 16 and that claims 16 lacked inventiveness in view of Evidence 3 and Evidence 5. On appeal, the Supreme People's Court clarified that the prior art Evidence 2 and the subject patent do not belong to the same subject matter because the claimed yttrium aluminum garnet based phosphors (broadly defined to emit green, yellowgreen, or yellow light) cannot be directly and unambiguously equated to the specific (Y,Gd)3(Al,Ga)5O12:Ce3+ phosphor disclosed in Evidence 2, meaning the patent could properly enjoy its claimed priority from the Japanese application. The Court also held that Evidence 5 could not be used as prior art because its publication date postdated the patent's priority date.

Consequently, the Supreme People's Court revoked the firstinstance judgment and the portion of CNIPA's decision invalidating claims 16, and ordered the State Intellectual Property Office to reexamine the invalidation request against claims 16 under the correct legal framework. This judgment affirms strict standards for priority and subjectmatter identity in patent invalidation proceedings and ensures that broad technical terms in claims are properly interpreted in view of specification disclosure.

India

Living Media India Limited & Anr. vs. Charcha Aaj Ki

Case No. CS(COMM) 15/2026

The Delhi High Court recently granted an injunction to Living Media India Ltd. against the digital channel "Charcha Aaj Ki" for using a logo that mirrored Aaj Tak's iconic red-white-black color scheme and border styling. The Plaintiffs argued that this visual mimicry constituted "trade dress" infringement, misleading viewers into associating the digital brand with the "well-known" Aaj Tak trademark established in 1995. The Court ruled that the Defendant's branding was deceptively similar and likely to cause public confusion. It was noted by the court that while the channel name was different, the replication of the "essential identifying features" of the logo allowed the Defendant to unfairly ride on the Plaintiffs' established goodwill. The court granted an interim injunction barring the Defendant from using the specific color palette and framing on platforms like JioTV and social media. The Defendant remains free to use the name "Charcha Aaj Ki," provided they adopt a completely new and distinct visual identity.

Amitoje India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Classic Display Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Case No. CS(COMM) 765/2024

The plaintiffs hold the Patent No. IN 533643 titled “A Foldable Product Display Unit” and initiated a suit in the Delhi High Court alleging that the defendant, a Haryana-based manufacturer, was infringing their patent by assembling, manufacturing, selling and supplying foldable display units incorporating features claimed in their patent. The plaintiffs sought injunction to restrain the defendant, stating that their patent covered novel features such as coordinated sideways folding of shelves and panels that allowed easy assembly without professional assistance. The defendant contested infringement and, crucially, filed a counterclaim challenging the patent's validity on multiple grounds including lack of novelty and absence of inventive step, asserting that similar foldable display units pre-existed the patent's priority date and citing published prior art such as an abandoned 2010 U.S. patent. The Delhi High Court, emphasized that the grant of a patent does not carry a presumption of validity at the interlocutory stage and that, if a defendant raises a credible challenge to validity, the plaintiffs fail to make out a prima facie case for injunctive relief.

The Court found that the alleged differences in folding direction were “mere workshop improvements” rather than inventive steps that would not be non-obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, particularly since the defendant had a history in the relevant business and damages could compensate the plaintiffs if they ultimately succeeded. Consequently, the Court declined to grant the interim injunction, allowing Classic Display Systems to continue manufacturing and selling the foldable units during the pendency of the suit, while leaving the ultimate merits of patent infringement and validity to be decided at trial.

People Interactive India Private Limited vs. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.

Commercial IP Suit No. 225 of 2015 | 2026:BHC-OS:685

The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking permanent injunction and ancillary reliefs against the defendants for infringement of its registered trademarks and associated domain names (Shaadi.com). The plaintiff contended that it is the registered proprietor of the mark “SHAADI.COM” and several formative marks containing the word “Shaadi,” which have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in India and abroad through continuous and extensive use since the late 1990s. The dispute arose when the defendants allegedly adopted and used deceptively similar domain names and branding incorporating the word “Shaadi,” thereby creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers seeking online matrimonial services. The plaintiff argued that such use amounted to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as passing off, dilution, and unfair competition, particularly given the distinctiveness and widespread recognition of its mark in the online matchmaking industry. The defendants contested the claims on grounds including alleged descriptiveness of the word “shaadi” (meaning “marriage” in Hindi/Urdu) and challenged the exclusivity claimed by the plaintiff over the term. The Court examined the rival marks, the nature of services offered, the evidence of reputation and prior use adduced by the plaintiff, and the principles governing deceptive similarity in internet-based businesses, especially the importance of domain names as source identifiers in e-commerce. Emphasizing that even a descriptive word may acquire distinctiveness through long and extensive commercial use.

The Court held that the plaintiff had established substantial goodwill and that the defendant's adoption of similar marks and domain names was likely to cause confusion and ride upon the plaintiff's reputation. The Court granted injunctive relief restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks or any deceptively similar variations in relation to matrimonial services, thereby reinforcing the protection accorded to established digital brands under Indian trademark law and affirming the enforceability of IP rights within the commercial division framework.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission vs. Enduring Body Care LLP and Ors.

Case No. CS(COMM) 22/2026

The plaintiff, Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC), a statutory authority established under the KVIC Act, 1956 and the registered proprietor of the well-known certification trademark “KHADI,” brought a suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs against the defendants, including Enduring Body Care LLP, for alleged unauthorized use of the mark “KHADI” in relation to personal care and cosmetic products. KVIC contended that “KHADI” is not merely a descriptive expression but protected certification mark signifying goods manufactured in accordance with specific statutory standards and bearing authorization from the Commission, and that the defendants' use of “KHADI” as part of their trade name and product branding was misleading, amounted to trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and constituted passing off by falsely suggesting an association or approval from KVIC. The plaintiff emphasized the extensive goodwill and public recognition attached to the “KHADI” mark. The defendants resisted the claim, contending inter alia that “khadi” is a generic term referring to hand-spun and handwoven fabric and that its usage in relation to herbal or natural cosmetic products was descriptive of qualities such as authenticity and traditional origin.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing certification trademarks, the scope of rights conferred upon KVIC, and prior judicial precedents recognizing “KHADI” as a well-known mark entitled to heightened protection. Observing that certification marks serve a public regulatory function and that unauthorized adoption undermines consumer trust and statutory control, the Court found a prima facie case of infringement and misrepresentation, and granted interim injunctive relief restraining the defendants from using the mark “KHADI” or any deceptively similar variant in connection with their goods and business operations, thereby reaffirming the strict protection accorded to statutory and certification marks in commercial intellectual property disputes.