Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1001–1100 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1, with Brita SE as plaintiff and Wessper Sp. z o.o. as defendant. The decision addressed issues of indirect patent infringement and patent exhaustion in relation to a two-component product and wear parts. The court established that for indirect infringement, the existence of the other component is not required for the objective elements, and that for exhaustion analysis, the technical teaching of combined claims (main claim plus sub-claims) must be examined.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 10,512,385 dishwasher patent, asserting that claims 13‑21 are obvious over Bosch, Ochoa, and Schessl references.
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd v.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks And, K.R. Nagendra, K.N. Shobha
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd appealed against the registration of a trademark by Shankar Industries. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shankar Industries was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that Shankar Industries had established use of the mark since 1995-1996 and that the appellant's use did not pre-date theirs. The court also noted that many of the appellant's registrations were limited to the state of West Bengal, while the respondents' registrations were limited to Karnataka.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court denied an ad-interim injunction to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco Limited, but directed both parties to sell their packaged drinking water products within their respective states. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant's mark 'MY WATER BOX' was similar to its own mark 'WATER BOX' and would cause confusion among consumers.
UMICORE N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V., RECAT GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning confidentiality in an infringement action involving European Patent EP4087952. The defendants requested that certain technical information in their Statement of Defence and Exhibit ES5 be classified as confidential and excluded from public access. The Court granted the confidentiality designation, expanded the list of persons at Umicore who could access the information to include technical experts, and ordered that Umicore's reply deadlines under R. 29(a) RoP begin from the date it receives the full unredacted Statement of Defence.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Application Rop 223
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED 2. NAGOR LIMITED 3. GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED 4. GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED 5. GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS 6. EUROSILICONE SAS 7. GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. 8. GC AESTHETICS GmbH 9. GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U. 10. GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED 11. GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED 12. GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED 13. ROMED N.V. v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
Infringement Action
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries filed a PGR petition for U.S. Patent 12,359,506, providing a corrected exhibit list that includes prior patents and a related Federal Circuit case.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting the patent.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 2025 dishwasher patent (US 12,232,681), seeking to invalidate claims 14‑16 and 19 as obvious over prior‑art references Carr, Mailander, and Ochoa.
Crocs Inc. & Anr v.Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited
Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Infringement Action
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
Application For Costs
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Infringement Action
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
Infringement Action
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
Application For Costs
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
Revocation Action
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd v.Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr
The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Meghmani Lifesciences Limited
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT'. The court found that the defendant's mark 'ESIRAFT' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and granted an injunction. The court applied the test of phonetic similarity and first impression to determine the likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Infringement Action
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
Infringement Action
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Application for provisional measures
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.
Unique Enterprenuers And Finance Limited v.Really Agritech Private Limited
The appeal challenged a single judge's order that vacated an interim injunction and revoked leave granted under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant claimed infringement and passing off based on the defendant using 'Really' while the appellant used 'RALLI'. The court found evidence (participation in a 2018 fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges) establishing that the appellant was aware of the respondent's product use since at least 2018, dismissing the appeal.
Laser Shaving India Private Limited v.Rkrm International Products Private Limited
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Laser Shaving India Private Limited against Rkrm International Products Private Limited, upholding the lower court's order refusing a temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed relevant material and was estopped from seeking relief due to its previous stand before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The defendant had commenced selling impugned products after the plaintiff's representation to Galactic, and the court concluded that the elements of estoppel were satisfied.
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) ahead of an appeal hearing. The Respondents sought French-to-English and English-to-French interpretation, arguing their representative lacked sufficient oral fluency in French. The Court rejected the request, holding that the inability of a representative to master the language of proceedings does not constitute sufficient justification, and ordered that the hearing be conducted in English.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
Simultaneous Interpretation
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
Infringement Action
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.
X Corp. v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of the ’744 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Palmon, Walther, and Lu. The petition invokes §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of review.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
Application RoP262A
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
Infringement Action
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Mechmaark Filtechindia Private Limited v.Asawa Insulation Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent no. 532136, which was granted to respondent no. 1 (Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.). The court issued notices and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
Infringement Action
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
Entegris, Inc. v.--
Entegris has filed a PGR petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,347,711, which covers a wafer‑container gas diffusion device. The company alleges anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness over its own prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all 31 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate TopWire's 9,859,202 PoP patent, asserting that all claim limitations are anticipated or obvious over earlier packaging references such as Sun and Chen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and requests cancellation of the challenged claims.
AFR M/s Ele Animations (P) Ltd. v.Satya Swagat Mohanty
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its application to reject a plaint filed by the respondent. The suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning artistic works depicting 'Lord Jagannath' and 'Jagan.' The core legal issue was whether the case qualified for exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, based on the claim of urgent interim relief.
Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal from the Local Division The Hague's order granting provisional measures in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning the alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, upholding the preliminary injunction against the GlucoMen iCan product, finding that the UPC had jurisdiction, the patent was valid, and the requirements for provisional measures were met. The appellants were ordered to bear the costs and pay an interim award of €200,000.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction over the cost decision application, which must instead be filed before the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The application to refer the cost decision to the CFI with a deemed filing date was dismissed.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order rejecting Rematec's request to transfer its cost assessment application to the Court of First Instance (Local Division Mannheim) with the original filing date preserved. The Court held that it lacked competence to decide on cost assessment, which must be initiated before the Court of First Instance, and that no exceptional circumstances justified a transfer. The underlying dispute concerned European Patent EP 2 548 648, where the Court of Appeal had previously reversed the first instance decision and granted Rematec's infringement claim on an auxiliary request while dismissing Europe Forestry's invalidity counterclaim.
Amazon.com, Inc. and others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional stenographer, based on an audio recording under Rule 115 RoP. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's order and held that producing a private transcript is permissible, provided it is clearly labeled as a private, non-authoritative document and used under specified conditions.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris seat) granted a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, a patent relating to light-emitting diodes owned by Seoul Viosys. The Court found that the independent claim contained added subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application, and that none of the patent proprietor's auxiliary requests could remedy this defect. Combined with the Court of Appeal's prior revocation of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 in parallel proceedings, the patent was revoked in its entirety as to the challenged claims.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi,
This revocation action concerns European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 relating to a light-emitting diode. The claimant sought revocation on grounds of added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, later adding a novelty ground. The defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form through multiple auxiliary requests. The Court addressed the consequences of a parallel Court of Appeal decision that had already revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and ruled on the admissibility of subsequent amendments and late-filed evidence.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition to institute an IPR against OptimNet’s U.S. Patent 9,313,101, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over the Mo and Peng references. The petition seeks cancellation of the challenged claims.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Appellant appealed against the Controller General's refusal to grant a patent application concerning SC-β cells. The rejection was based on objections regarding definitiveness, non-patentability, and sufficiency of disclosure. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer due to significant changes in the claims.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics CO., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Google LLC v.--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Scipharm Sarl v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870, to which Belparts responded with a counterclaim for infringement and an application to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and entered the decision on the register without issuing a cost decision.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.