Intellectual Property (IPR) Developments in Patent, Copyright, and Trademark Litigation

Abstract

This article examines major developments in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) litigation during 2025–2026, focusing on patents, copyright, and trademarks[cite: 5]. It highlights how courts globally addressed challenges posed by Artificial Intelligence, including landmark copyright cases on AI training, fair use, and authorship[cite: 5]. Key patent reforms such as the revised CRI Guidelines 2025 in India and PTAB changes in the US are discussed, along with issues of patent eligibility and infringement[cite: 5]. In trademark law, the article covers online platform liability, non-traditional marks like sound and smell, and dilution of well-known marks[cite: 5]. The study concludes that harmonization of IP laws, ADR mechanisms, and proactive IP strategies are essential to adapt to the rapidly evolving digital era[cite: 5].

Introduction

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are the legal rights granted to creators of the human mind[cite: 5]. They give creators and inventors exclusive rights to their creations, and they allow them to benefit financially from their inventions[cite: 5]. The main types of IPR are patents, copyright and trademarks[cite: 5]. Today IPR has become very important for the businesses, artists and inventors[cite: 5].

The years 2025–2026 have been a turning point for intellectual property law[cite: 5]. Courts around the world are starting to make clear decisions on new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)[cite: 5]. This article discusses the major trends in patent, copyright and trademark litigation over this period and what they portend for the future[cite: 5].

Copyright Disputes: Fair Use in the Digital Age and AI Authorship

What is Copyright?
Copyright is a form of legal protection for original works of authorship[cite: 5]. As per Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright gives to the owner the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform and display the work[cite: 5]. Copyright protects literary works (such as books, poems, software), dramatic works, musical works, artistic works (such as paintings, sculptures), cinematograph films and sound recordings[cite: 5].

Evolution of Copyright Law
Copyright law has changed a lot over time[cite: 5]. The first copyright law in India was passed in 1847 under the British rule[cite: 5]. The present Copyright Act was enacted in 1957 and has been amended several times, the latest being in 2012[cite: 5]. Copyright is primarily to incentivize creativity by enabling creators to gain economic benefit from their work[cite: 5]. The copyright typically lasts for 60 years after the author’s death[cite: 5].

Copyright in the Digital Age
Nowadays, a copyright is more complex[cite: 5]. Now, with the internet, it is very easy to copy and share works[cite: 5]. This has led to a number of debates over what amounts to “fair dealing” (the Indian version of fair use) – the right to use copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching or research[cite: 5].

Fair Use and AI Training: The 2025–2026 Landmark Cases
2025–2026 was a breakthrough period for copyright law regarding AI[cite: 5]. Courts issued major decisions on whether training AI systems on copyrighted works is allowed[cite: 5].

Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence (February 2025)
In this landmark US case, Judge Stephanos Bibas found that Ross Intelligence violated Thomson Reuters’ copyright in over 2,800 Westlaw headnotes by using them to train its AI search engine without permission[cite: 5]. The court rejected Ross’s fair use defense, a major win for content owners[cite: 5].

Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC (June 2025)
Judge William Alsup delivered a mixed ruling[cite: 5]. It was determined that the use of legally acquired books in AI training is one of “the most transformative uses that we will see in our lifetimes” and constitutes fair use[cite: 5]. However, the ruling was not supportive of the fair use defense when it comes to copyrighted material that was acquired via piracy[cite: 5]. Anthropic had downloaded over seven million digital copies via piracy websites such as Library Genesis[cite: 5]. It was ruled that piracy of copyrighted material is “inherently, irredeemably infringing.”[cite: 5] In September 2025, Anthropic paid $1.5 billion as part of the settlement agreement, the largest copyright settlement in US history[cite: 5].

Kadrey v. Meta Platforms (June 2025)
In a lawsuit between Meta and authors whose books were used by Meta to train its Llama AI systems, Judge Vince Chhabria gave summary judgment to Meta regarding fair use[cite: 5]. The judge found that LLM training was transformative but highlighted that market impact is still the most crucial element of fair use[cite: 5].

Disney and Universal v. Midjourney (June 2025)
Disney and Universal filed a lawsuit on June 11, 2025, against Midjourney, a startup engaged in AI picture creation[cite: 5]. This was the first notable lawsuit filed by the film industry against generative AI companies[cite: 5]. Disney and Universal claim that Midjourney is a “bottomless pit of plagiarism” that creates unauthorized versions of popular characters such as Darth Vader, Elsa, and Shrek[cite: 5]. According to some reports, Midjourney had 21 million users and earned $300 million in revenue in 2024[cite: 5].

ANI v OpenAI (2025–2026)
This case, titled Asian News International vs. OpenAI, has been filed by the Asian News International (ANI), which accused OpenAI of using its news content to develop ChatGPT without permission in Delhi, India[cite: 5]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the interim order against OpenAI[cite: 5]. The case reflects some of the deficiencies that may come into play in AI-related copyright cases[cite: 5].

Trademark Conflicts: Online Platforms, Non-Traditional Marks, and Dilution

What is a Trademark?
A trademark is an indicator, symbol, or phrase that distinguishes goods or services of one organization from other similar organizations[cite: 5]. According to Section 2(1)(zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, “trademark means a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.”[cite: 5] It includes “shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors.”[cite: 5]

Evolution of Trademark Law
Protection for trademarks has been in existence in India from ancient times[cite: 5]. In India, the first trademark act was that of the Trademark Act of 1940, which was modeled after the British Trademark Act of 1938[cite: 5]. It was followed by the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958, and later the Trade Marks Act of 1999[cite: 5].

Online Platform Liability
One of the biggest challenges in trademark law today is the liability of e-commerce platforms for counterfeit goods sold by third-party sellers[cite: 5].

Lifestyle Equities v Amazon (February 2025)
The High Court of Delhi ordered Amazon to pay damages worth $39 million (approximately ₹340 crore) to Lifestyle Equities for infringement of the trademark ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club'[cite: 5]. Justice Prathiba M. Singh discussed the meaning of ‘e-infringement’, emphasizing that it is very difficult for IP owners to deal with the problems posed by e-commerce portals which have created this novel form of infringement[cite: 5]. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal filed by Lifestyle Equities in September 2025, saving Amazon from paying the fine[cite: 5].

Reliance Industries v. Anonymous Sellers (July 2025)
The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic injunction restraining anonymous infringers from using the trademarks “RELIANCE” and “JIO” across e-commerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, Meesho, and Snapdeal[cite: 5]. The court directed the immediate delisting of 21 infringing products[cite: 5].

Puma v. IndiaMart (July 2025)
In this case, the court ruled that listing of such fake products would violate the rights of Puma in its registered trademarks[cite: 5]. Nonetheless, upon appeal, the division bench came to the conclusion that it was not necessary for IndiaMart to remove the word Puma from the drop-down menu[cite: 5].

Yatra Online Limited v. BookMyYatra (August 2025)
The Delhi High Court said that the word “Yatra” (which means journey) is a generic and descriptive word in the travel sector and therefore could not be owned by any entity[cite: 5]. It was highlighted that when Yatra Online had gotten their trademark, it was clear that “no exclusive rights for the word Yatra.”[cite: 5]

Non-Traditional Trademarks
Trademarks are no longer limited to words and logos[cite: 5]. Non-traditional marks include sounds, colors, shapes, and even scents[cite: 5].

Sound Marks: United Breweries and Taj Hotels (2025)
Registration of the tune “Oo la la la la le o” belonging to United Breweries as a sound mark became effective as of January 31, 2025[cite: 5]. Similarly, Taj Hotels got their trademark registration for their signature sound as of January 7, 2026, effective as of April 17, 2025[cite: 5].

India’s First Olfactory (Smell) Trademark (November 2025)
A milestone development is seen when the Trade Marks Registry recognizes the first olfactory trademark in India for advertisement purposes which reads “Floral Fragrance/Smell Reminiscent of Roses as Applied to Tyres” filed by Sumitomo Rubber Industries[cite: 5]. It shows that Indian legislation is definitely adopting an approach towards non-traditional sources of identification[cite: 5]. Sumitomo Rubber Industries had been incorporating rose smell in its tyres since 1995[cite: 5].

Trademark Dilution
Hermès v. Macky Lifestyle (November 2025)
In the case where the marks of Hermès were used without authorization in imitation of its well-known Birkin bag design, the Delhi High Court recognized those marks as well-known trademarks[cite: 5]. It provided relief for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, dilution, and tarnishment[cite: 5].

WIPRO Declared Well-Known Trademark (December 2025)
The Delhi High Court also declared “WIPRO” as a well-known trademark, affirming that famous trademarks deserve protection not merely within their product category but across all classes[cite: 5].

Patent Litigation Shifts: Eligibility, Reforms, and Damages

What is a Patent?
A patent is an exclusive right for an invention which is a new product or process involving an inventive step and having industrial applications[cite: 5]. According to Section 2(1)(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, “Invention means any new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.”[cite: 5] Duration of a patent is for 20 years from the date of filing of the patent application[cite: 5].

Patent Eligibility: The Alice/Mayo Framework
Following the rulings by the US Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) and Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), there has been a lack of clarity concerning patent eligibility of software and business methods[cite: 5]. A two-step test has been applied by the courts in determining patent eligibility[cite: 5].

Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp. (April 2025)
Using the Alice test for machine learning patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that simply applying a generic machine learning process to new data does not make the invention eligible for patent protection without any technological advancement in the machine learning process itself[cite: 5].

Madras High Court Ruling on Process Claims (April 2025)
Regarding Annikki v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, the Madras High Court has deliberated on the issue of the patentability of method claims in relation to Section 3(d)[cite: 5]. It was observed by the court that the claims which are truly method claims that involve an improvement through technology and the physical process involved, cannot be considered non-patentable even when there is no final product achieved at the end of the process[cite: 5].

CRI Guidelines 2025 (July 2025)
Indian Patent Office announced the revision of the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI) 2025 on 29th July 2025[cite: 5]. The guidelines help in patentability of computer related inventions and are significant in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and blockchain technology[cite: 5].

PTAB Reforms (2025)
March 2025: Bifurcated Process — The USPTO implemented an interim process for managing the PTAB’s workload by bifurcating the decision on whether to institute an IPR or PGR into two distinct phases: discretionary considerations and merits considerations[cite: 5].
October 2025: Director Authority — Effective October 20, 2025, the USPTO Director, rather than a PTAB panel, will decide whether to institute inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings[cite: 5]. This centralizes authority and could lead to more consistent decision-making[cite: 5].

Patent Damages and Infringement
Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi (July 2025)
Conqueror Innovations’ application for an interim injunction against Xiaomi was dismissed by the Delhi High Court owing to inordinate delay, limited local use of the patented product, and insufficient evidence[cite: 5]. It is clear from this case that inactivity with respect to the patent and delays can affect applications for an injunction adversely[cite: 5].

NATSOFT v. Hexaware (2025-2026)
The Natsoft Corporation of America filed a patent lawsuit worth $500 million against Hexaware Technologies in October 2025[cite: 5]. The US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed all patent infringement claims in June 2026[cite: 5]. The motion to dismiss was filed by Hexaware in December 2025[cite: 5].

Converging Challenges: Extraterritorial Reach and FRAND Licensing

FRAND Licensing
FRAND stands for Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory[cite: 5]. It refers to licensing terms for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) – patents that protect technology essential to industry standards[cite: 5]. SEP holders must offer licenses on FRAND terms to ensure fair access to standard technology[cite: 5].

Dolby v. Lava (July 2025)
A case instituted against Lava for patent infringement by Dolby International led to the Delhi High Court ordering Lava to pay over ₹20 crore[cite: 5]. In this matter, the court condemned the behavior of Lava over six years of negotiations, referring to the conduct as “Patent Holdout”.[cite: 5] It was ruled that Lava was simply delaying negotiations[cite: 5].

Optis v. Apple (UK Supreme Court, 2025-2026)
The UK Supreme Court addressed the correct approach for determining FRAND terms for global portfolio licenses of SEPs, raising important questions about how courts should determine FRAND rates[cite: 5].

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Unified Patent Court (UPC) Developments (October 2025)
The local division of the UPC in Mannheim decided that it has the competence to hear cases of infringement against a Korean defendant concerning the Polish, Spanish and UK designations of a European patent[cite: 5]. This greatly broadens the scope of UPC jurisdiction[cite: 5].

CJEU Ruling in BSH v. Electrolux (June 2025)
The Court of Justice of the European Union held that a Member State court retains jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement claim even if the defendant challenges the validity of the patent in another country[cite: 5].

Proposed Reforms: Harmonization, ADR Mechanisms, and Proactive IP Strategies

Harmonization
This is because IP rights have territorial nature and therefore a patent issued in one country will not protect the invention in another[cite: 5]. The role of WIPO continues working towards harmonizing IP laws around the globe[cite: 5]. The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center acts as an avenue for resolving IP disputes through mediation and arbitration[cite: 5]. The TRIPS Agreement outlines minimum standards for IP protection in all WTO member states[cite: 5].

ADR Mechanisms
The alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process consists of mediation, arbitration, and negotiation[cite: 5]. ADR is becoming popular in IP cases due to their being quicker, more economical, and confidential than going to court[cite: 5]. An average WIPO Mediation process lasts 3-4 months, whereas court process may last for several years[cite: 5].

Proactive IP Strategies
In light of the rapidly changing legal landscape, companies need to adopt proactive IP strategies[cite: 5]:

1. Regular IP Audits: Conduct regular IP audits to identify and protect valuable IP assets[cite: 5].
2. Lawful Sourcing: Ensure lawful data sourcing when training AI systems – using pirated or improperly sourced data carries significant risk[cite: 5].
3. Non-Traditional Registration: Register non-traditional trademarks like sounds and scents to build stronger brand protection[cite: 5].
4. Strategic Patent Filing: File patents strategically with careful attention to eligibility requirements, especially for AI and software inventions[cite: 5].
5. Utilizing ADR: Use ADR mechanisms to resolve disputes faster and more confidentially[cite: 5].
6. Platform Monitoring: Monitor online platforms for counterfeit goods and take prompt enforcement action[cite: 5].

India’s IP Reforms
There has been an increase of 44% in IP filings in India over the last five years, with the numbers going up from 4,77,533 in 2020-21 to 6,89,991 in 2024-25[cite: 5]. The Indian IP Offices have been upgraded with an advanced e-filing system that allows more than 95% of the filings to be done electronically[cite: 5].

Conclusion

From 2025 to 2026, many major changes occurred in the intellectual property law field[cite: 5]. For example, the courts have begun to clarify how the intellectual property law should be interpreted in terms of AI-related technology[cite: 5].

Copyright Law: Important limits concerning the use of AI technology for learning purposes were defined by the courts in 2025-2026[cite: 5]. The legal use of copyrighted materials for the creation of algorithms may be considered as fair use; whereas the use of pirated data may result in huge fines – for instance, the settlement between Anthropic in the amount of $1.5 billion[cite: 5].

Trademark Law: Platforms that sell counterfeit products are becoming more responsible, and non-traditional trademarks such as sounds or fragrances gain more popularity[cite: 5].

Patent Law: Regarding patent law, the standards for AI inventions are becoming more stringent, whereas the Indian 2025 CRI Guidelines have been much needed for clarification[cite: 5]. The changes that are going on in the PTAB are bringing the power and decision-making into one hand[cite: 5].

Going forward, the harmonization of IP laws, expanded use of ADR methods, and proactivity in IP laws will be necessary in order to cope up with the changing situation[cite: 5]. The courts are still making the laws and will continue to do so with new cases[cite: 5]. As Judge Bibas has aptly said: “A smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong.”[cite: 5] The law must be flexible enough to change with time[cite: 5]. All the changes in 2025-2026 demonstrate the efforts of courts, legislations, and business to adapt themselves to the changing situation of the digital era[cite: 5].

References

[1] Copyright Act, 1957 (14 of 1957) – Sections 14, 52[cite: 5].
[2] Trade Marks Act, 1999 (47 of 1999) – Sections 2(1)(zb), 29, 30[cite: 5].
[3] Patents Act, 1970 (39 of 1970) – Sections 2(1)(j), 53[cite: 5].
[4] Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, D. Del., Feb. 11, 2025[cite: 5].
[5] Bartz et al. v. Anthropic PBC, N.D. Cal., June 23, 2025[cite: 5].
[6] Kadrey et al. v. Meta Platforms, N.D. Cal., June 25, 2025[cite: 5].
[7] Disney Enterprises v. Midjourney, C.D. Cal., June 11, 2025[cite: 5].
[8] ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI Inc, CS(COMM) 1028/2024, Delhi High Court[cite: 5].
[9] Lifestyle Equities CV v. Amazon Technologies, Delhi High Court, Feb. 26, 2025[cite: 5].
[10] Reliance Industries v. Anonymous Sellers, Delhi High Court, July 10, 2025[cite: 5].
[11] Puma v. IndiaMart, 2025 SCC Online Del 4165[cite: 5].
[12] Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd., Delhi High Court, Aug. 22, 2025[cite: 5].
[13] Conqueror Innovations v. Xiaomi Technology, CS(COMM) 361/2023, Delhi High Court, July 4, 2025[cite: 5].
[14] Recentive Analytics v. Fox Corp., Fed. Cir., April 2025[cite: 5].
[15] Annikki v Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, (T)CMA(PT) 70 of 2023, Madras High Court, April 24, 2025[cite: 5].
[16] Dolby International v. Lava, Delhi High Court, July 17, 2025[cite: 5].
[17] Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRI), 2025, Indian Patent Office, July 29, 2025[cite: 5].
[18] USPTO Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions, Nov. 28, 2025[cite: 5].
[19] USPTO Director Institution of IPR and PGR Proceedings, Oct. 20, 2025[cite: 5].
[20] WIPO Statistics Database, 2025[cite: 5].