Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 1201–1300 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
This is a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), which relates to systems and methods for controlling position, particularly wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders. ABM alleges that Philips' NightBalance position therapy device infringes device claims 1, 2, and 4 of the patent. The patent had previously been confirmed in amended form by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal on 25 December 2024 following opposition proceedings initiated by a Philips group member.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a request by Sibio Technology Limited for further exchanges of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in its appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing its revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 831 283 B1 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Sibio argued that further pleadings were needed because Abbott, in its Statement of response, maintained six auxiliary requests as an alternative to upholding the appealed judgment. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the first instance proceedings and automatically form part of the appeal proceedings under Rules 222.1 and 222.2 RoP, requiring no refiling.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
It follows from Rule 370.7 RoP that if a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid for that counterclaim. However, if one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage (e.g. because the statement of claim was served much later), that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by the other defendants. In this situation, it is not the same action/counterclaim in the meaning of Rule 370.7 RoP, even if th
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This procedural order concerns a dispute over access to case files (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had previously granted the applicant's request for file inspection on January 27, 2026, prompting Respondent Huawei to seek Panel Review under Rule 333.1 RoP and a suspension of the order's effects. The Rapporteur issued this order addressing whether, under Rule 335 RoP, he should suspend his own order pending the Panel Review to prevent the review from becoming moot.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
Kas Zainulabdin And Co v.Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons Gm And Sons Private Limited And Anr.
This case involves a suit for infringement and passing off. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed facts regarding their knowledge of the impugned product. However, the court dismissed the application seeking dispensation under Section 12A, finding that the grounds provided by the plaintiff were sufficiently explained and the cause of action was continuing and recurring in nature.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' objection and for the respondents to file a rejoinder, and requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign an additional technically qualified judge with expertise in the relevant technical field (classification A61F/A61B).
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer et al.
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division, in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent No. EP2590626. PBNT filed a submission requesting the court to order GSK to limit the number of Auxiliary Requests to ten and to grant an extension of the deadline for filing PBNT's Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence, Reply to the Counterclaim, and Defence to the application to amend the patent. The order addresses these procedural requests under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
Landmark Crafts Limited v.Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The appellant sought rectification to cancel a registered device mark (No. 3986970) held by the respondent, alleging irregularities in its grant. The Deputy Registrar had previously cancelled the registration. The appeal before the High Court questioned whether the substitution of marks constituted a substantial alteration under the Trade Marks Act.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-24) under reference UPC-000065, UERAN Technology LLC appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited, the sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 951 625 concerning an optical apparatus for bundling laser light, brought an infringement action against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG based on claim 6 of the patent. The action concerns alleged direct literal infringement, and subsidiarily direct equivalent infringement, in respect of the national parts of the patent in force in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania. The defendant filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim held an oral hearing on January 27, 2026 and rendered its decision on February 24, 2026.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
IPG Photonics Corporation v.Trumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents on November 7, 2025. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file replies and complete pleadings before listing the matter for final hearing.
Faiveley Transport Tours v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Faiveley Transport Tours filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated November 07, 2025. The appellant seeks to quash that order and obtain a patent grant for application no. 202117042875.
Asian Paints Limited v.Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors.
Asian Paints Limited filed a suit against Smt. Manju Rani Jindal and others alleging infringement and passing off concerning its trade marks (ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN). The dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the mark 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' on paint-related goods like wall putty and cement paints. Given the Defendants' failure to contest the suit, the court decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_283/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2026 concerning R. 262.1(b) Request for access to the case file - UPC_CFI_697/2025 APPLICANT Gowling WLG 38 avenue de l'Opera, 75002, Paris, FR Represented by Mari
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a. O.
This provisional procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 805 415 and was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in consolidated proceedings. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) filed a request to designate certain information as trade secrets or confidential information under Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court addressed the defendants' requests regarding the protection of confidential information and the restriction of access to specific individuals.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP2590626. The primary issue is GSK's application under Rule 263 to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products.' Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et. al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
SEG Solar, Inc. et al. v.--
SEG Solar and affiliated entities have filed an IPR petition challenging Jinko's 2023 solar‑cell patent, asserting that 18 claims are obvious over multiple Chinese patents and academic papers. The petition lays out detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to prior art and seeks cancellation under § 318(b).
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
Fertin Pharma A/S v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fertin Pharma A/S appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (no. 202017042442). The High Court found that the rejection order was cryptic, lacked clarity of objection, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims based on prior art documents D1-D3.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited in the CFI main action) v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link had applied before the Local Division Munich for access to certain pleadings and annexes filed by Huawei and Netgear in related infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 678 321, after redaction of personal data. Netgear opposed the request, seeking its rejection or, alternatively, that TP-Link only receive access to fully redacted versions of the documents. The appeal proceedings concern the contested order of the Local Division Munich dated November 28, 2025.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A. and 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 17/02/2026 (R.19 Objection préliminaire) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1.b/ relative à « l’action porte sur la même cont
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-17) under reference UPC-000080, Malikie Innovations Limited appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec concerning patent rights
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 2 548 648, involving Rematec GmbH & Co KG as the appellant (plaintiff in infringement proceedings and defendant in nullity counterclaim proceedings) and Europe Forestry B.V. as the respondent (defendant in infringement and counterclaimant in nullity). The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding the need to examine dependent claims when the independent claim is upheld, the obligation to issue a final decision rather than remand, and the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ. The decision establishes important principles about the scope of appellate review in combined infringement and nullity proceedings.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited v.Vienna IT Solutions Private Limited
Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc appealed regarding the possibility of amending its patent claims. The appellant sought permission to limit the claimed compounds to 52, arguing this would not contravene Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued against the amendment based on previous judicial precedents.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
1 di 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI n. 770/2024, n. 556/2025 ordinanza depositata il 13.2.2026 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. (‘Pirelli’) CONVENUTO Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd. (‘SYR’) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDI
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v.Germ Dome Industries LLC
Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
Colonel Dhyan Mayadas Retired v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner, a retired military officer, filed a patent application for 'Ballistic Armour Shield' in 2018. Despite the application being deemed 'in order for grant' by the Patent Office (Respondent No. 2), it remained pending with DRDO (Respondent No. 3) for nearly seven years without consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite the process.
Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the extension of limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The court was asked to consider a revocation petition filed by Uflex Limited against The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr. The judge noted uncertainty regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because the renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH. a. o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, filed a patent infringement action against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 on November 19, 2025. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff declared withdrawal of the action, and the defendant consented. Both parties jointly indicated that no cost decision was necessary due to an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This case concerns a claim for damages brought by Fives ECL, SAS against REEL GmbH relating to European Patent No. EP 1 740 740. The plaintiff filed a request for determination of damages on August 8, 2023, following a prior patent infringement proceeding between the parties before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the applicable law for lost profit claims, holding that national (German) law applies when the factual circumstances were completed before the Unified Patent Court came into force on June 1, 2023, and that both national law and the UPCA, being based on Directive 2004/48/EC, should yield the same assessment of lost profits.
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet sur la recevabilité de l’appel contre une ordonnance statuant sur une objection préliminaire rendue le 11 février 2026 EN-TETE Une ordonnance du juge-rapporteur qui fait droit à l’objection préliminaire mais ne met p
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.L v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This order concerns an application for a cost decision filed by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation in UPC CFI no. 178/2024 and no. 432/2024. The respondent Progress Maschinen & Automation AG argued that its appeal against the first instance decision, filed on 11.12.2025, had automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA, rendering the cost application untimely. The applicants countered that R. 150 RoP does not require finality and that the suspensive effect should be limited to the revocation portion of the decision. The Court rejected the applicants' restrictive interpretation, holding that the automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety.
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Oswaal Books appealed a refusal order by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for registration of the mark 'ONE FOR ALL' in Class 16. The lower court held that the phrase was common and descriptive, lacking inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The High Court overturned this decision, finding that the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive and capable of registration.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Europäisches Patentamt (EPA)
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd v.Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent no. IN541962 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that a related suit was pending before another judge and directed the matter to be listed before that same bench.
Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited v.The Indian Patent Office & Ors.
The Appellant, Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited, filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202011037218. The current order addresses applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the said appeal.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiff, Crocs Inc Usa, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Bata India Ltd for infringing its registered design. The suit was previously disposed of after the design registration (No. 197685) was cancelled by the Controller of Patents & Designs due to lack of novelty. The current application seeks costs against the plaintiff.