Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1101–1200 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs withdrew the action and requested a 50% reimbursement of court fees, with the defendants consenting to the withdrawal. The parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each side bears its own costs, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International (claimant) v.Fives ECL (defendant)
1 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, Division centrale (Section Munich) rendue le 24 mars 2026 EN-TETE Le défaut d’intérêt à agir et l’autorité de la chose jugée, que le défendeur à une action invoque pour dénier à
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Altria Client Services LLC v.--
Altria Client Services LLC petitions the PTAB to cancel a design patent for a dog‑toy set that mimics Marlboro cigarette packaging, citing a 1959 Life Magazine ad and a 1976 trademark registration as prior art.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner sought orders regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court noted that the issue had been addressed by a Division Bench judgment in another appeal (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr).
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and requested a partial refund of court fees. The defendant consented to both the withdrawal and the fee refund, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 11,041,149 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and anticipates all claims under prior art US‑275.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’720 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering microphones, WLAN, speakers, and lighting. The petition highlights a deficient examiner search and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Novartis Ag v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited
This order addresses several interlocutory applications filed by Novartis Ag against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed additional documents, while also considering arguments regarding the scope of the defendants' license under the Patents Act.
Wirtgen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Ors
Wirtgen Gmbh appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient claim definition under the Patents Act. The High Court found that the impugned order suffered from analytical and procedural deficiencies.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
Sanofi - Aventis appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was perverse because it failed to adequately address arguments concerning lack of inventive steps and should have been based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v.Topsoe A/S
This order concerns HyGear B.V.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a case involving European patent EP3802413 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming. The main proceedings were initiated by Topsoe A/S against HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH, and the Technical University of Munich. The President of the Court of First Instance was asked to decide on the language change request pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with most parties consenting to the change except the Technical University of Munich.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
Tv Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
Tv Today Network Limited (Plaintiff) filed a suit alleging defamation, disparagement, and copyright infringement against News Laundry Media Private Limited (Defendant). The dispute centered on derogatory content aired by the Defendant. The court found that commercial disparagement was made out and granted an interim order directing the removal of specific defamatory remarks.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order that dismissed its post-grant opposition to Indian Patent No. 319780. The appeal challenged the dismissal on grounds that the impugned order was non-speaking and failed to consider crucial reply evidence and documents filed by ITC under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court found that the Controller had ignored categorical directions regarding these submissions.
Mati Therapeutics Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mati Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs. The court order addressed arguments regarding the possibility of amending patent claims to comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether such amendments could be reviewed at a de novo stage.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 605 534, with Dolby International AB as the plaintiff and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. as defendants, relating to smart TV technology and standard-essential audio/video codecs. The dispute centers on FRAND licensing obligations and whether Dolby holds a dominant position on the relevant market. The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU may arise where smart TVs cannot be offered without a license to the patent in suit, given consumer expectations of codec compatibility. The court further ruled that under the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, if the alleged infringer fails to express willingness to take a license after being notified of infringement, the examination terminates without needing to assess whether the patent holder's offer is FRAND.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
(1) 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) G v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1, which relates to a method and device for producing milk foam with adjustable temperature. The plaintiff, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, brought the infringement claim against ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The key legal ruling addressed the scope of destruction remedies under Article 64(2)(e) UPCA, holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the statutory wording.
VEOLIA PROPRETE, VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
1 UPC_CFI_417/2025 UPC_CFI_509/2025 UPC_CFI_528/2025 DECISION du tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction Unifiée du Brevet rendue le 18 mars 2026 EN-TETE : 1. L'article 123(3) CBE a pour objectif de garantir la sécurité juridique des tiers en interdisant toute exte
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑conversion patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition invokes 35 U.S.C. § 103 and follows Phillips claim‑construction standards.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Qomplx’s 12,143,424 patent covering distributed stream‑processing graphs. The petition relies on Barsness and two later disclosures (Chakradhar and Siripurapu) to argue obviousness under §103 for nine claims.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Sanas.AI’s real‑time accent‑correction patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim element is taught by combinations of Feinauer, Prabhavalkar, Fan and others.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 29 claims of Cogmedia’s ’371 patent, asserting that the claimed card‑based social features were obvious over earlier systems such as McQueen and Forsyth. The petition seeks institution on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Apriori Inc v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Apriori Inc filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging the Assistant Controller's decision dated 15.12.2025, which refused to grant a patent for Indian Patent Application No. 202017008435. The court issued notice to the respondent and set a date for returnable hearing.
Viance, LLC v.Koppers Performance Chemicals, Inc.
Viance, LLC has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all 27 claims of Koppers' wood preservative patent (US 12,370,716), alleging lack of written description and that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Novartis Ag & Anr v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to expedite the consideration of their Indian Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011, which had been pending for over 15 years despite multiple pre-grant oppositions being filed. The Court noted the unacceptable delay and directed the Respondents to decide the application and all related oppositions as expeditiously as possible within four months.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Vijayawada Distilleries Private Limited & Another
The plaintiff filed an interim application alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark, "OFFICER'S CHOICE," and related labels by the defendants who adopted deceptively similar marks like "EXECUTIVE CHOICE" and "OLD CROWN". The court examined the proprietary rights, noting that the Plaintiff had secured registrations for these marks and variants. Based on a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and evidence of deceptive similarity, the court granted ad-interim relief.
Geron Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Geron Corporation appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its application concerning telomerase inhibitors. The core dispute was whether the claimed 'in vitro screening method' was, in substance, a diagnostic process that falls under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court ultimately held that despite being drafted as a screening method, the claims covered a diagnostic process essential to medical decision-making and were therefore not patentable.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This appeal concerned the review of an ex parte order for inspection issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf. Ecovacs had applied for an order to inspect and preserve evidence of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 808 512. The Court of Appeal addressed the heightened duty of candour imposed on applicants seeking ex parte orders under R. 192.3 RoP, holding that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts relevant to the proportionality assessment cannot be remedied by later submissions in response to a request for review.
Apple Inc. v.TopWire, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of TopWire’s ’202 Patent covering a spacer‑connector package‑on‑package structure, alleging obviousness over Chen, Sun, Wu and Furuta references.
QD Oxford UK Limited et al. v.Maybell Quantum Industries, Inc.
QD Oxford UK has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑6, 8, and 17‑19 of U.S. Patent 12,313,320 covering dilution refrigerators. The petition relies on six prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v.Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a Trademark Suit against the respondent (defendant) alleging infringement by using the similar trade name 'Kshetrapal Construction'. The appeal challenged the trial court's order rejecting the application for an interim injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish secondary meaning and had suppressed material facts.
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Sk Bioscience Co Ltd appealed against the Assistant Controller's order rejecting the grant of a patent application. The Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal, which was accepted by the Respondent.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead expert evidence regarding the potential revocation of an impugned patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to file the necessary evidence affidavit.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPENAI LP, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY v.KEEEX SAS
1 Ordonnance de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13 mars 2026 EN-TÊTE : En principe, le mémoire en demande doit contenir les éléments de droit et fait nécessaires pour justifier la compétence de la juridiction. Lorsque la compétence de la juridiction est fo
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 22 claims of AccuSearch’s ’184 patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists eight §103 grounds covering the full claim set.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 39 claims of AccuSearch’s ’937 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art search‑engine interfaces. The petition relies on Bates, Bhagat, Brinson, Mehta, Naick, Wang and Mills as teaching references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
International Bridge Technologies Middle East DMCC v.Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, (2)(1)(1)
The assessee, a UAE-based company engaged in bridge design, challenged an assessment order classifying professional fees received for providing Design Support Services for the Versova-Bandra Sea Link Project as taxable royalty. The assessee argued that since ownership of the designs was outrightly transferred to Systra India, it constituted a sale of intellectual property rather than a right to use, thus not falling under the DTAA definition of royalty.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notices and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notice and directed Respondent No. 1 to file a reply within four weeks.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.
Saurabh Arora v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents which dismissed a post-grant opposition filed against Patent No. IN 283059. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned, failing to assess the technical merits of the prior art (D1) cited under Section 25(2)(c).
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The respondent authorities adopted a narrow interpretation, arguing that GUIs are mere software and not registrable articles. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the existing legal definitions must be interpreted expansively to recognize GUIs as industrial designs.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUI qualifies as a registrable design were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation, failing to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.Controller of Patent and Designs
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke challenged the refusal of his patent application (No. 879/MUM/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, which was upheld in a prior appeal. The present Commercial Appeal sought to challenge this order further under Section 13 of the CCA, but the Court found that the statutory provisions did not permit such an appeal.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents
Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v.Tata Play Limited and Others
The plaintiff, Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, sought an interim injunction restraining Tata Play Limited and others from using the mark 'ASTRO DUNIYA', alleging trademark infringement and passing-off. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the coined mark used for astrological services since 2005. However, the court found that no prima facie case was made out for either infringement or passing off, dismissing the interim application.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l
KeyMed brought a patent infringement action against Italian company PR Medical s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division, alleging infringement of EP 2575590 B2 through the marketing of an accessory called 'Detecto.' PR Medical raised a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) of the UPCA Agreement. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the two conditions under Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively as an exception.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
Gowling WLG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.