Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 901–1000 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
In this legal proceeding before Brussels (BE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_46FFEC8858, Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG appeared in dispute with ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑22 of SoftView’s ’729 patent, alleging they are obvious over prior‑art handheld browsers (Zaurus, Pad++) and SVG standards, with claim 21 also relying on SVF. The petition invokes estoppel and issue preclusion based on earlier PTAB findings for related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑37 of SoftView’s ’628 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and arguing the claims are indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 115 claims of SoftView’s ’889 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and are indistinct from previously cancelled claims in related patents.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses multiple procedural applications in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order deals with Acer's application for production of comparable licence agreements under Rule 190, requests for a confidentiality regime under Rules 262A and 262.2, the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., and Dolbys request for an extension of deadlines. The subject matter includes an infringement action, a counterclaim for revocation, and a counterclaim for rate-setting.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,031,677, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board is asked to end the review under statutory authority.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over its Lapiplasty bunion correction system. The agreement resolves multiple infringement and unfair competition claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus settled their IPR dispute before the trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
A confidential settlement agreement was filed, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Treace Medical’s bunion‑correction patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of InterDigital’s ’606 video‑encoding patent, asserting obviousness over Sekiguchi, VCEG‑AJ21, Xiong and H.264. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis linking each limitation to the prior art.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
Appeal RoP220.2
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Generic Order
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Infringement Action
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as entirely inadmissible the appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 19 December 2025, which had ordered Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that Adobe had failed to first obtain authorization to appeal from the first instance court as required by Rule 220.
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
This order concerns an application by the plaintiff for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) under the revised Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, rejecting the plaintiff's request for 60% reimbursement.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Application for provisional measures
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
This order concerns a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) in relation to European Patent EP 3 295 663. The preliminary injunction application had become devoid of purpose after the Court of Appeal set aside the Helsinki Local Division's earlier decision dismissing the infringement action and PI for lack of jurisdiction, and AIM Sport indicated it no longer wished to pursue the PI application. The Court disposed of the provisional measures application based on Rule 360 RoP (no longer need to adjudicate) and addressed the parties' requests regarding costs.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
In infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, the defendants alleged public prior use based on two 2008 projects (Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands) in which plugs allegedly embodying all features of the patent were supplied by IHC Handling Systems (later merged into IQIP B.V., a subsidiary of the claimant). The defendants filed a request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to order IQIP Holding B.V. and IQIP B.V. to produce extensive technical documentation regarding the prior plugs and assemblies. The Court partially awarded the request, finding it too broad and therefore limiting the scope of the production order.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Infringement Action
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
Generic Order
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762, in which CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG sues ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur, sets out directions for the further conduct of the case, including requirements for uniform patent interpretation, the presentation of validity attacks (particularly on inventive step), the proper formatting of auxiliary requests, and a timetable for revised submissions and responses. The court found the defendant's inventive step attacks insufficient and advised focusing on the strongest attacks, while also setting deadlines running from May 15, 2026 through June 19, 2026.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning the suspension of appeal proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Both parties jointly requested suspension of the appeal proceedings regarding an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation due to an out-of-court settlement. The Court of Appeal granted the joint request and ordered the suspension of both appeal proceedings to prevent the deadline for filing the appeal brief from expiring before decisions on the withdrawal applications are made.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v.Zapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Infringement Action
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
Application For Costs
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Infringement Action
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Appeal RoP220.1
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
Application for provisional measures
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
Infringement Action
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
The Court of Appeal had previously ordered ONWARD Medical N.V. to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Niche Biomedical, Inc. filed a cost assessment application on 27 April 2026, but withdrew it the same day, stating it would refile the application at the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal by analogy to Rule 265(1) RoP without a hearing, finding that the respondent's interest was not affected and that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
fiskaly GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 titled 'SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS,' filed an application on April 20, 2026 seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. No main infringement action had yet been filed, but fiskaly indicated its intention to bring such an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf following the requested inspection. The order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on April 27, 2026, under Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV based on European Patent EP3841735. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed whether further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should be considered, and weighed the relevance of English being the language of the patent and the technology field against the particular circumstances of the parties' size and domicile. The order was issued following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
S.S. White Burs Inc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & S.S. White Dental Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted rectification of the respondent's trademark registration for 'S.S. WHITE' in Class 5 and Class 10, as the petitioner, S.S. White Burs Inc, had prior use and registration of the mark 'S.S. WHITE BURS INC' in Class 10. The court held that the respondent's use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent was directed to file an affidavit indicating the quantity and batch number of the existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and was allowed to dispose of the existing stock within a specified time frame.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Application Rop 223
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Johnson Paints Co v.Johnson Paints Private Limited
The Patna High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Johnson Paints Co, restraining Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the trademark 'JOHNSON' with prefixes and suffixes or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a better common law right and that the defendant's use of the trademark would lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity and cause deception of the public. The court also directed the learned Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. et al.
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich upheld an order requiring the Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, to provide EUR 300,000 in security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1. The Claimant argued that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' should relieve it of the obligation to provide security for costs, but the court rejected this argument. The court also held that merely taking out ATE insurance does not automatically remove the obligation to provide security for costs.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Infringement Action
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Revocation Action
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Infringement Action
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Dainese S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of protective motorcycle equipment including the DAir® airbag system, brought an infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l. (a Spanish company) concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364, alleging that the defendants' Tech Air 3 System and Tech Air 10 Race System products infringed the patent. The decision addresses jurisdictional issues under Article 8 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, examining whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments when one defendant is domiciled in Spain and is sued for infringement of the Spanish portion of the same patent.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Application for provisional measures
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy applied for an ex parte provisional measure described as an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales. The dispute arises from global SEP litigation between the parties, with infringement actions pending before the Local Chambers Mannheim and Munich, and a parallel rate-setting proceeding initiated by Geely before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Nokia seeks to prevent Geely from obtaining an 'Interim Licence' or equivalent measure in the Chinese proceedings, arguing such relief would interfere with the UPC's jurisdiction over the European patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075.
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India v.Le Shark Apparel Limited
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Appeal RoP220.1
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under Rule 192 against WEPA Nederland B.V in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which relates to tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing the seizure of descriptions, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, The Netherlands. The court applied specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure, including provisions on password-protected drives and cloud-stored documents, and ruled that the Applicant's representatives may not be present during the seizure while Defendant's personnel may be questioned but cannot be compelled to answer under penalty.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-04-17) under reference UPC_5B2F76A36A, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appeared in dispute with Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Infringement Action
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Appeal RoP220.1
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Infringement Action
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin sued Goodyear for infringing European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to a 'Variable surface area tire tread.' Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation. The Paris Local Division of the UPC found the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, and dismissed all of Michelin's infringement claims, ordering Michelin to bear the costs.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., plaintiff in a patent infringement action before the UPC Local Division Milan concerning EP2507436 and EP1995159, sought a 30-day extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. Xelom s.r.l. opposed the request. The Judge Rapporteur granted the extension to May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, approximately 150 new validity attacks, and a 360-p