What 2026 Means for Indian IP Strategy: A Practitioner’s View

Introduction : This is probably the conversation that has been happening in every Indian IP practitioner’s mind this year : has 2026 really changed something or does it just feel that way ? No changes have been made to the statute book. However, the methodology of courts applying tools that are already available on the shelf will have changed significantly by the time they reach the issue of mediation, digital forensics, the three-part injunction test, and John Doe orders in the 2022 world. Four things to be considered this year in IP Litigation: mediation, evidence, injunctions, and the new, quiet, expectations of digital enforcement, and all of those now demand of a law firm looking to anticipate, rather than react to, a case moving through the docket.

The Institutional and Statutory Framework.

• Section 12A and the ‘Urgency’ Question that keeps coming back : According to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, Section 12A, for commercial suits, mediation will be obligatory prior to the institution of the proceedings, except where an interim order is sought. This is the initial procedural hurdle in almost every IP conflict in India as almost all IP suits are considered to be commercial litigation. Two things this year have made it more focused. In Novenco A/S v. Xero Energy, the Supreme Court determined that no urgency is lost for an infringement that continues when the claimant fails to file a lawsuit in time. Separately, in the Jiostar case related to the broadcast rights, the Delhi High Court granted an exemption for plaintiff from pre-institution mediation without any dispute over its rights and allowed the case to go to trial during live sports events, which may occur every IPL and ICC season.

• The Mediation Act, 2023 : Not a mere formality before the ‘real’ fight When it first came down the tracks, the Mediation Act, 2023 was not very enthusiastic, it seemed, yet another statute that you would simply be able to work around, when your client really did want some fight. But it hasn’t completely held true. The enforceable settlement-agreement process has come in very handy in cases of disputes over royalties, technology transfers, and co-branding, among other contexts, where confidentiality and a continuing commercial relationship are typically far more important to the client than a reported judgment ever will be. The court is no longer just sending the issue to mediation at the pre-institution stage, but after there’s already a suit on file. The Delhi HC’s referral last year of Voicemonk’s patent application against Google in February 2026 is the obvious case and the Supreme Court’s own referral of the long-drawn trade dress of Allied Blenders and John Distillers case is similar. The referral to mediation is not, in itself, a remedy to the doctrinal confusion the case raises.

• Dedicated IP Divisions : Speed Is No Longer the Selling Point, It’s the Baseline It is easy to overlook how recently the IP Divisions at Delhi, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were viewed as a means to an end or as nothing more than an experiment. They no longer are. What was once a fast forum, it is now the forum in Delhi’s IP Division, at least, and the impact has been magnified by the introduction of pleading restrictions, the introduction of case management, a summary judgment procedure against claims that have no real prospects of success and a further limitation on interlocutory appeals. From a drafting lawyer’s perspective, this may not be the most interesting matter, but pleadings, claim-construction charts, and interim-relief applications must be ready for trial from the outset. There’s not as much space for the plan to be a first draft that could be refined later.

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 : Screenshots Are No Longer Enough The change in Section 65B certification headache is more significant for IP practice than one might think. Digital data kept in a server or in the cloud can now be used as primary evidence without a printout serving as an intermediate, and Section 63 mandates that a qualified “digital forensic expert” certify the data before it can be used as evidence. The same trend has been noted in commentary for electronic evidence practice under the BSA: the new rules will incentivize true forensics, while the evidence collected after the fact will be penalized. For an IP dispute arising from scraped listings, pirated uploads, or an infringer’s site, it’s no longer best practice, it’s closer to a requirement for evidence to be given credence at any point. C. Ideas: Make sure they are clear and coherent.

A Practitioner’s Analysis: Four Themes for 2026

• Mediation Deserves a Seat at the Strategy Table, Not Just a Tick-Box : Most litigators were trained to try to bypass Section 12A mediation as early as possible as the ‘real’ case kicks in. Now, that instinct is becoming antiquated. The Delhi High Court’s referral to court annexed mediation in February 2026 of the patent dispute between Google and Voicemonk Inc., an AI startup company, was not a routine step in the proceedings, but a judicious decision reflecting the Court’s belief that mediation would be an appropriate process in a technically complex and high-stakes dispute between a startup and a global platform. Where the underlying relationship is contractual (e.g. a licence) mediation has a distinct advantage over litigation: speed, confidentiality, and the ability to achieve a settlement without the client relinquishing litigating rights should it fail. The only question to ask clients now is whether they want to avoid Section 12A. It is whether or not it is doing them a favor and whether or not ‘urgency’ is being used as a crutch in an argument that a structured mediation would finish sooner and quieter.

• Evidence : Stop building the file after the fight has already started Evidence building must not be an add-on feature that is initiated after it is discovered that the infringement has occurred. The chain of custody documentation is being closely examined and a poor screenshot or the unvetted export can be rejected even if it is blatantly infringing on the content. The recurrence of the checklist across the practitioners’ comments is not difficult, and for that reason, it is the easiest to overlook when time is of the essence, bring in either a forensic specialist to image servers and devices when infringement first comes to light, not weeks later, or retain the right early technical for claim construction in a patent matter, or brand-valuation or consumer survey for a trademark dispute, and construct an element-by-element claim-construction map that ties the interim-relief application and ultimately the trial. This should be a reminder for in-house teams to review monitoring and escalation processes prior to the occurrence of any dispute, rather than after the fact and trying to piece together a paper trail from memory.

• Injunctions : A Fast, But Don’t Take it as a Rubber Stamp? – In the busier benches, the courts in India continue to grant interim injunctions promptly when there is an actual urgency and the proceedings between filing and listing and holding a hearing for the interim are completed in about 2 to 4 weeks. What’s been notable this year is the minimal amount of attention that such speed has garnered. In a closely guarded anti-diabetic drug case involving the apprehension of infringement being speculative and the Division Bench’s failure to grant an injunction against a first instance, courts denied the relief. In the first case, a major pharmaceutical innovator was denied interim relief because the apprehension of infringement was ‘speculative’, while in the latter case the Division Bench issued a stay on an injunction on the first instance after finding that the Single Judge had ‘misconstrued’ the claim itself. The appellate stay of the ₹339-crore damages order in the Lifestyle Equities case, partly on the basis that the original order was largely ex parte, perhaps makes a similar point from the damages point of view. None of this is an indication of a lack of willingness to provide relief. It indicates that the three-part test of ‘prima facie case’/ ‘balance of convenience’/ ‘irreparable harm’ has been read with great care at all levels and an application for ‘interim relief’ is being drafted for the wrong reasons.

• Digital Enforcement : The courts’ remedial tool kit has evolved to fit. The introduction of ‘Dynamic’ and ‘Dynamic+’ kinds of injunctions, which cover mirrors, future uploads, and infringers not yet even born, has been from an innovative remedy to a rather regular addition to injunctions issued against rogue web sites, following the set-up provided by the Delhi High Court in UTV Software v. 1337X years ago. What’s fresher is seeing that architecture being borrowed to cause a new sort of harm. Courts have acted swiftly to safeguard the dignity of public figures and their voice and image, including actors, sportspersons and religious figures, from the threat of AI-generated deepfakes and cloned voices, and have deemed an unauthorized use of the name, voice and likeness of a public figure to be treated in the same manner as a trademark claim, since early 2026.

Relevant Developments and Case Laws

Novenco A/S v. Xero Energy, 2025 INSC 1256: The Supreme Court concluded that the delay in starting a suit was not an obstacle to urgency under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act in the event of a continuing infringement, and that public interest to stop deception itself provided the urgency to obtain interim relief.

Voicemonk Inc. v. Google LLC, CS (COMM) 119/2026, Delhi High Court: In February 2026, a patent infringement case involving AI and Android technology was set for court-annexed mediation, marking a step toward greater judicial trust in mediation, even in technically complex, high-dollar cases.

UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.TO, CS(COMM) 724/2017, Delhi High Court: It established India’s first “dynamic injunction,” allowing copyright holders to block newly emerged mirror or proxy websites without obtaining a fresh judicial order each time.

Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3804: The Delhi High Court issued a “dynamic” injunction protecting the personality rights of the spiritual leader. The ruling restrains rogue websites and individuals from unauthorized commercial exploitation of Sadhguru’s name, voice, and AI-generated likeness.

Automat v. Aquestia Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 123/2025 & CM APPLs. 49211/2025, 49212/2025 & 49213/2025 : The upgradability of the Single Judge construction of a patent claim was demonstrated by a Division Bench that quashed an interim injunction to stop sale of a fluid-control valve for a patent infringement case, where the Single Judge had erred in interpreting the scope of the claimed patent.

Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors., CS(COMM) 443/2020: Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of Division Bench which set aside the award against Amazon by single Judge for Rs.339.25 Cr, for the misappropriation of the mark ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ on the ground that original proceedings were substantially an ex parte one, not tested with a real defence.

Nokia Technologies OY v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 321/2022: The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench explained the guidelines to be observed in issuing ‘pro tem deposit’ orders in standard-essential-patent cases, which provide interim financial security for the patentees without issuing an injunction that could disrupt the market.

What This Actually Means Day to Day

When read through the eyes of a legal team, this boils down to a few things this quarter. Litigators should no longer simply argue around Section 12A, but instead, make a thoughtful, case-by-case decision whether mediation is indeed more expedient to the client than urgency-based litigation. In-house counsel should have a forensic vendor on retainer before they need one, and they should be honest about whether the current escalation process could produce a court-ready evidence file in few days (as opposed to weeks) most can’t do. For brands with digital portfolios, where the focus is on digital, it is important that any takedown is a temporary measure and that brands take steps early to establish facts and monitoring. But if and when the courts are there, and the deepfake rulings of this year attest, so should the rest of us who advise talent or public figures on endorsement deals.

Conclusion

In Indian IP, speed and rigour are no longer an equation and courts are expecting practitioners to balance both. Mediation has moved from a pre-suit hurdle to a bona fide strategy option. A very high-level of authentication and custody is being applied to digital evidence, which may have seemed somewhat vigilant a few years ago. Injunctions are still speedy, but are being granted, denied, and overturned based on a more nuanced assessment of the merits than was the case previously. And the digital enforcement has expanded from chasing one infringer at a time to creating remedies that last for the next mirror site, the next deep fake, the next platform. None of this calls for new legislation; it is merely the cumulative effect of the Commercial Courts Act and the Mediation Act, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and over a decade of hardworking IP divisions rolling out step-by-step. The challenge as we enter 2027 is not to sit and wait for the next amendment. It’s important to recognize that the system has shifted and ensure that our own mediation playbooks, evidence playbooks, playbooks on enforcement, are shifting with it.

Author:- Vishakha Periwal, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or   IP & Legal Filing.

Endnotes / References

1. Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, s. 12A.
2. Mediation Act, 2023 (India).
3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, ss. 63-64 (India).
4. Novenco A/S v. Xero Energy, 2025 INSC 1256.
5. Voicemonk Inc. v. Google LLC & Ors., CS (COMM) 119/2026, Delhi High Court.
6. UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337X.TO, CS(COMM) 724/2017, Delhi High Court.
7. Automat v. Aquestia Limited, Delhi High Court, order dated 5 January 2026.
8. Nokia Technologies OY v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., FAO(OS)(COMM) 321/2022.
9. Lifestyle Equities CV & Anr. v. Amazon Technologies, Inc. & Ors., Delhi High Court, judgment dated 25 February 2025.
10. Chambers and Partners, ‘Intellectual Property 2026 – India,’ Global Practice Guides (2026).
11. Chambers and Partners, ‘Patent Litigation 2026 – India,’ Global Practice Guides (2026).
12. Chambers and Partners, ‘Life Sciences & Pharma IP Litigation 2026 – India,’ Global Practice Guides (2026).
13. ‘IP Newsletter 2026 Q1 (January-March 2026),’ Mondaq (India), March 2026.
14. ‘IPR Law Updates (February 2026),’ Mondaq (India), March 2026.
15. ‘IP News Updates – January to April 2026,’ The IP Matters (May 2026).
16. ‘IPR April 2026: Personality Rights, Trade Mark, Deepfake & More,’ SCC Online Blog (May 2026).
17. ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement in India 2026,’ Global Law Experts (2026).
18. Dyquiangco, E.V., ‘Evolving IP Trends in 2026,’ Asia IP (2026).
19. ‘From Symbolic Awards to Serious Enforcement: The Transformation of Patent Damages in India,’ IAM (2025).
20. ‘Inside India’s IP Market: A Guide 2026 – The Intersection of IP Rights and Cybersecurity,’ World Trademark Review (2025).
21. Byadwal, Y., ‘Novenco v. Xero: Do IP Cases Get a Free Pass to Bypass Sec 12-A?,’ SpicyIP (2025).
22. Agrawal, A., ‘Original Sin: Why Inventing Abbreviations Distorts Trademark Law,’ SpicyIP, guest post on the Allied Blenders v. John Distillers mediation referral (2026).
23. Economic Times, ‘Delhi HC Sends Voicemonk’s Patent Suit Against Google Over Gemini, Android to Mediation’ (February 2026).
24. ‘Deliberate and Wilful Infringement of Trademark: Delhi HC Directs Amazon to Pay Rs 339.25 Crore to Luxury Brand Beverly Hills Polo Club,’ LiveLaw (2025).
25. ‘Delhi High Court Stays Order Directing Amazon to Pay $39 Million to Lifestyle Equities in Trademark Dispute,’ Bar and Bench (2025).
26. SpicyIP, ‘Trademark Infringement’ archive, including commentary on the Amazon v. Lifestyle Equities Division Bench stay (2025-26).