Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 401–500 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH & Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of patent infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim for revocation pending a final decision by the European Patent Office in parallel appeal proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 651 429. The patent, relating to a vehicle communication network, had been revoked by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 July 2026, and the Claimant had filed an appeal on 4 August 2026. The court weighed the Claimant's right to a timely hearing against the need to avoid conflicts between UPC infringement measures and the EPO's revocation decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against MSN Laboratories Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and granted the plaintiffs a refund of the entire court fees.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. Dolby had brought an infringement action against Acer entities concerning European patent EP 3 079 153, and Vectis (administrator of the patent pool containing the patent) intervened. Acer filed counterclaims for revocation and FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting suspensive effect, and additionally declared Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 726 883. QIAGEN Sciences had filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation were withdrawn by mutual consent. The court allowed the withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both the claimant and the defendants.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Dolby and Vectis for suspensive effect (stay) of first instance proceedings pending their appeal. The underlying dispute concerned an order of the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in support of Dolby and declared Acer's counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay and additionally held Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order contained no ruling adversely affecting Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 223/2026) against Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking a permanent injunction to restrain alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 419280 (IN'280) relating to Asciminib. The Defendant filed an application seeking condonation of a 34-day delay in filing its written statement, which was allowed. The Defendant then voluntarily undertook not to commercially manufacture, sell, or deal in any product containing Asciminib or Asciminib Hydrochloride during the subsistence of IN'280, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs in Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011. The private respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that challenging the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition is contrary to Sections 25(2) and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provide equally efficacious remedies. The court issued notice limited to the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for 16th September 2026.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed in respect of four Assignment Deeds involving trademarks transferred from various parties to KKR Agro Mills Private Limited and subsequently to the Petitioner. The Madras High Court, without entering into the merits of the claim, directed the Respondent to take up and dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
This is a patent infringement suit (COMS No.3 of 2022) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and another plaintiff allege that Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited infringed their patent rights under Indian Patent No. 243301. The court framed four issues for trial, including questions of infringement, entitlement to permanent injunction and damages, and the validity/revocability of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The matter was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing a date for recording evidence.
Julius Blum GmbH v.Arturo Salice S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438, which relates to a furniture hinge. The plaintiff Julius Blum GmbH alleges infringement of claims 1-5 and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant Arturo Salice S.p.A. has filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the dispute, cost settlement, further written submissions, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Kodak Holding GmbH & Others v.Fujifilm Corporation
This case concerns enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, where Kodak appealed penalty orders imposed by the Mannheim Local Division for alleged non-compliance with an injunction in patent infringement proceedings brought by Fujifilm. Following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision on the merits setting aside the Mannheim Local Division's decision and finding that Kodak did not infringe the patent due to a private prior use right, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation of the underlying decision had retroactive effect, removing the legal basis for the penalty orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at one million Euro, ordered Fujifilm to bear Kodak's legal costs, and ordered the refund of penalty payments already made.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of cross-appeals in a patent dispute involving EP 2 642 632. The Local Chamber Hamburg had previously dismissed the infringement claim and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd and Anr
This is an order sheet from the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court in a matter relating to a trade mark dispute. The court, on the prayer of the review applicant, peremptorily extended the time to file a supplementary affidavit till 17th August, 2026, and granted liberty to the respondents to file a rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit by 28th August, 2026. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of September, 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) filed a patent infringement suit against Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising mobile devices incorporating AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies covered by Ericsson's suit patents. During the pendency of the suit, Ericsson and Defendant No. 2 amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 01.12.2025. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, allowed withdrawal of a connected commercial complaint, and granted the plaintiff a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Enviro Ambient Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Enviro Ambient Corporation appealed against the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. IN201917020705 for a 'Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method' by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Patent Controller had rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as non-speaking and unreasoned, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with directions to decide within three months.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Others
Bostik, Inc. filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Henkel entities, alleging that Henkel's Loctite® Liofol cold-sealable adhesive products infringed European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court declared the patent invalid in its entirety (including the amended form under auxiliary request AR1) on the ground of added matter, finding that Claim 1 as granted constituted an intermediate generalization beyond the original application disclosure.
Biopsafe ApS v.Kaltek S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for security for costs filed by the defendant Kaltek S.r.l. in patent infringement proceedings brought by Biopsafe ApS before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Kaltek argued that Biopsafe's financial position, characterized by low share capital, microenterprise status, aggressive dividend distribution, and near-zero liquidity, raised a legitimate concern that any costs award would be unrecoverable. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Kaltek had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Biopsafe's recent acquisition by Medcap for approximately EUR 15.38 million and its demonstrated growth in profits and assets.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc. & Samsung Electronics
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2047617. Following an agreement between the parties, the judge-rapporteur confirmed the alignment of deadlines for all defendants to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation by 26 October 2026. The order also confirmed that Dr. Ebersohl would represent Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) in addition to the Samsung defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé seeking a stay of proceedings and a declination of jurisdiction in favour of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The court held that Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation (lis pendens) did not apply because the UPC infringement action and the Paris TJ revocation/non-infringement action did not share the same cause of action. While the cases were 'related' under Article 30, the court declined to stay proceedings because the UPC decision would likely be rendered before the Paris TJ decision, and a stay would unduly delay the UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order sets procedural directions, including the value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), scheduling oral hearings on 9-11 September 2026, and identifying the main legal points relating to claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and interim measures.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the value of the infringement action at 5 million euros and the counterclaim for revocation at 5 million euros, totaling 10 million euros. It also establishes the procedural framework for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 9-11 September 2026, covering claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and an interim award.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 410/2020) filed by Astrazeneca AB & Anr against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, based on a joint application recording an amicable settlement between the parties. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement, which formed part of the decree, and directed refund of the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against USV Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a single Judge's order that had set aside the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of Kangaro Industries' request for extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings. V-Guard Industries had applied for registration of the mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16, which Kangaro Industries opposed. The Division Bench held that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory, that no extension of time is provided under the 2017 Rules unlike the 2002 Rules, and consequently the opposition stood deemed abandoned. The appeal was allowed and the single Judge's order was set aside.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG & Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a review application filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the judge-rapporteur on 22 June 2026 in proceedings involving EP 1 955 151. CA challenged the order on the ground that Telekom had only submitted an excerpt (Annex B5) of a larger document in unredacted form, arguing that Rule 262A.3 RoP required disclosure of the entire underlying document. The court rejected the review application, holding that an excerpt can constitute an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3 RoP and that there is no right to access the entire source document.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO Group)
This order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerns a dispute over the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action involving EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo (the defendants collectively) sought to add two former in-house employees to the confidentiality club to access license materials, while KPN objected and requested a licensing bar. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the club beyond the existing members, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf confidentiality regime, and deferred the licensing bar question pending clarification from KPN.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of service dates and deadlines for filing statements of defence in a patent infringement action brought by Cardo Systems against two defendants, Ziwu and Resosport. The judge-rapporteur had ordered a notional common starting date of 10 June 2026 for all defendants, with statements of defence due by 10 September 2026. Cardo sought review of this order, arguing it granted the defendants a de facto 50-day extension inconsistent with the UPC's objectives of speed and efficiency. The Panel dismissed Cardo's application, finding the order constituted a balanced compromise that provided certainty and orderly management of the proceedings.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning a request for revision under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure. KEEEX SAS, holder of European patent EP2949070, sought partial revision of a June 25, 2026 order that had rejected its request for further patent modification under R.30.2, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim under R.263, and excluded certain sections of its June 5, 2026 brief as late-filed under R.9.2. The panel rejected both KEEEX's and ADOBE's revision requests, finding that the original order correctly applied UPC jurisprudence on subsequent patent modifications and procedural admissibility.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon confirmed a cost settlement between Ericsson and Asustek under Rule 365.1 RoP in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131. Following a merits decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim and dismissing Asustek's counterclaim for revocation, Ericsson requested confirmation of the parties' jointly submitted cost agreement requiring Asustek to pay EUR 150,000. The Court rejected Asustek's arguments that the agreement merely fixed a cost ceiling requiring a separate R. 150 procedure, holding that the substance of the agreement constituted a settlement resolving a potential cost dispute.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland SARL & Anr.
The petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark ULTIME REPAIR registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in Class 03 under registration No. 5918380. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to take the settlement on record and direct removal of the trademark entry. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, took the settlement on record, and directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
Mex Switchgears Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The applicant, Mex Switchgears Private Limited, filed an application to condone a delay of 122 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.801379 to Trademark Application No.1763867 in Class 09. The respondent opposed the application. The Madras High Court, after considering the averments in the affidavit and being satisfied with the reasons stated, allowed the application and condoned the delay.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of three connected revocation petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc against Nokia Technologies Oy, pertaining to Indian Patent Nos. 381056, 320467, and 356246. The petitions were withdrawn by Asustek following the parties' entry into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their pending disputes. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to reinstitute revocation or other legal proceedings in respect of the subject patents if required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a suit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing the patented compound Dabrafenib, allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 275655 (IN'655). The defendant, through its counsel, gave an undertaking to the court not to commercially manufacture or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The court accepted the undertaking, decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, and directed the defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
The Petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026 executed with Respondent No. 1, and to direct Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' (Registration No. 6343131 in Class 03) from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court found the settlement terms to be lawful and allowed the application. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was allowed, and the registration of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' in favour of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled, with Respondent No. 2 directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in cases UPC CFI no. 377/2025 and no. 702/2025, concerning the rectification of a clerical mistake under R. 353 RoP. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties of the Court's intention to correct an error in a prior order issued on 22 July 2026, where the value of the counterclaim for revocation was incorrectly stated as EUR 1,850,000 instead of the correct EUR 1,875,000. Both parties confirmed they had no objection to the proposed rectification, and the order was issued accordingly.
Bystronic Laser AG and Others v.ASTES4 SA
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in a patent infringement action. The defendants (Bystronic group entities and Isochronic AG) sought the change to English, the language in which the patent EP2164678 was granted, while the claimant ASTES4 SA opposed it. The President granted the application, holding that all parties are part of international groups equally capable of litigating in English and that the defendants' position prevails when the balancing of interests is equal.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 29.04.2025 allowing respondent no.2's application for registration of the trademark '20-20' in Class 30. The appellant claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the marks '20-20', 'TWENTY-20' and 'T20' and alleged deceptive similarity with respondent no.2's mark. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was guilty of approbation and reprobation since it had obtained its own registrations by asserting its marks were distinct from respondent no.2's mark, and could not now claim deceptive similarity to challenge the latter's registration.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 199 RoP) filed by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer, against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The applicant sought to inspect a tap-changer exhibited by the respondent at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. Following an ex parte order on May 20, 2026, the Local Chamber Munich modified the order on July 27, 2026 to refine confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication with the appointed expert.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action for European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute centered on whether SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or micro enterprise (SME), with the parties disagreeing over the relevance of an Investment Agreement. SYPOX withdrew the unredacted version of the Investment Agreement and relied only on the redacted version, and the court dismissed Topsoe's requests for access to the unredacted document.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH & Others (Akteneinsicht)
A member of the public (a patent attorney) sought access to the case files of a concluded UPC infringement action between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber partially granted the request, allowing access to the complaint and most exhibits while excluding confidential out-of-court correspondence and requiring redaction of personal data and a confidentiality undertaking.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 079 153. The Claimant, Dolby International AB, informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement signed on 17 July 2026, and both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the stay with immediate effect pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP, and indicated its intention to cancel the oral hearing scheduled for 8 April 2027.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. In this decision dated July 27, 2026, the court modified the original order regarding confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication between the applicant and the appointed expert.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. Following the respondent's review application and an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, the court modified the confidentiality provisions of the original order, supplemented it based on the parties' joint declarations, and rejected further requests.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer (Laststufenschalter), for an inspection and evidence preservation order under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court initially granted an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026, and following an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, issued a modified order on July 27, 2026 adjusting the confidentiality provisions and the mechanism for access to the expert's report.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This case management order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the reimbursement of overpaid appeal court fees. WEPA had appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague confirming a preservation of evidence order and paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees, but argued the correct fee was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the fixed fee under Rule 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR with no additional value-based fee, and ordered the Registry to reimburse 9,600 EUR.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)
This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.
Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd
The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. v.Dolby International AB (EP 3 605 534)
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, sought access to the court file of concluded main proceedings (UPC_CFI_226/2024) between Dolby International AB and Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing access to the statement of claim with specified paragraphs and personal data redacted, while excluding the annexes.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem
ORDER
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Disney entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoding and decoding. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found that Disney had infringed the patent by offering and placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in several Contracting Member States. The court dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation and issued injunctive relief, recall and removal orders, and information/accounting orders, while apportioning costs 90% to the Defendants and 10% to the Claimant.
TVS Motor Company Limited v.Ram Chandra Maurya & Ors.
TVS Motor Company Limited, a leading manufacturer of two-wheelers and three-wheelers, filed a commercial suit seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction against Ram Chandra Maurya and others who had been issuing cease-and-desist notices alleging copyright infringement based on two copyright registrations for literary works titled 'Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law' and 'Motion's Sixth Law'. The Delhi High Court found that the Defendants had been unsuccessful in proving copyright violation before the Copyright Authority and up to the Supreme Court, and that patent applications for the same subject matter had been abandoned. The Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from issuing such threats.
Nature Coatings Inc v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks
Nature Coatings Inc filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 16.04.2026 refusing grant of patent under Application No. 202227024750. The Court allowed the appellant's application for exemption and granted three weeks' time to place on record the apostilled copy of the Power of Attorney. Notice was issued to the respondent, who accepted notice through counsel, with directions to file reply within six weeks and rejoinder within four weeks thereafter.
Array Biopharma Inc v.Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs
Array Biopharma Inc appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the order dated 30.06.2023 refusing Patent Application No. 450/DELNP/2015 titled 'Pharmaceutical Combination Comprising a B Raf Inhibitor, an EGFR Inhibitor and Optionally a PI3K Alpha Inhibitor' on grounds of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Sections 3(d) and 3(i). The Delhi High Court found the Controller's reasoning on inventive step, Section 3(d), Section 3(i), and Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) to be deficient and lacking in proper analysis. The appeal was disposed of by remanding the matter back to the Controller for de novo reconsideration, with directions to dispose of the application within six months and to grant an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Alka Industrial Corporation v.Satyapaul And Co & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 294/2026) before the Delhi High Court challenged a Single Judge's judgment dated 09.02.2026 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 651/2022, which had directed variation of the trademark 'AiC ARUN' (Registration No. 1524226) registered in favor of Respondent No. 1 by deleting the word 'ARUN' under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. In the LPA, the appellant sought permission to dispose of its existing stock of goods, spare parts, and packing material bearing the mark 'AIC Arun', valued at approximately Rs. 8,50,000/-, within six months. With consent from both parties, the court permitted disposal of the stock on or before 31.01.2027 and directed the appellant to file a statement of disposal by 07.02.2027.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment in favor of Opella Healthcare Group, the registered proprietor of the trademark PHENSEDYL (used since 1954 and in India since 1995 for pharmaceutical products), against Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd, which had adopted the deceptively similar mark PHENSERYL along with a similar trade dress. The Defendant's trademark and copyright registrations had already been cancelled by the Court on 12.11.2024. Since the Defendant failed to appear and had no real prospect of defending the claim, the Court decreed the suit in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 38(a) to (e) of the plaint.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed Original Applications seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing its registered Patent No.IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The dispute concerned an allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at the premises of the second defendant in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The Court extended the previously granted interim order until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent revocation petition filed by Asustek Computer Inc. against Nokia Technologies Oy's Indian Patent No. 387206 under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. During the pendency of the proceedings, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The Court permitted the Petitioners to withdraw the revocation petition with liberty to re-institute proceedings if so required.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a Commercial IP Suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and another against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The Plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the Defendants sold a competing product called 'Apex Pickle Container'. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed during the hearing, with the Defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining it from manufacturing, marketing, or selling products under the impugned trade dress, artwork, or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' products.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This case before the UPC Local Division of Milan concerns patent infringement claims by Prinoth against Xelom regarding European patents EP 2507436 and EP 1995159, both relating to snow groomer (battipista) technology. Following an ex parte evidence preservation order executed in April 2025, Prinoth sought additional evidence including document production, physical inspection, and judicial experiments to prove infringement. The Judge Rapporteur granted the request for physical inspection and wei
Jagdish Dahyalal Patel v.Anchor Consumer Products Private Limited
This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 26.05.2026 restraining the Appellant from using the mark 'DYNAFRESH' for air fresheners, on the ground that it was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered trademark 'DYNA' used for soaps and personal care products since 1999. The Appellant contended that the Respondent suppressed material facts, namely 45 GST paid tax invoices evidencing use of 'DYNAFRESH' since June 2021. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no suppression of material facts and that the Appellant's earlier trademark application for 'DYNAFRESH' had already been refused by the Registrar on 29.07.2024 on grounds of conflict with the Respondent's mark and lack of bona fide adoption.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Yogi Products
This was a commercial IP suit filed by Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd and Anr against Yogi Products concerning alleged infringement of trade dress and copyright relating to pickle containers. The plaintiffs marketed their product as 'Milton Pickle Container' while the defendants sold a competing 'Apex Pickle Container' with allegedly similar trade dress and packaging. The parties settled all disputes through Consent Terms executed on the date of hearing, with the defendant submitting to a decree on admission restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, or selling the impugned product.
SAPAT International Private Limited v.Niravi Consumer LLP and Ors.
This trademark infringement and passing off suit was filed by SAPAT International Private Limited against NIRAVI Consumer LLP and related defendants, alleging that the defendants' use of the mark 'SAPAT' on tea products and at retail outlets constituted infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark in Class 30 and passing off. The defendants, partnership firms involving Ritu Nikhil Joshi and Nikhil Joshi (a director of the plaintiff company), marketed tea under the brand 'NIRAVI' while displaying 'SAPAT' on signages and hoardings. The Bombay High Court found that the defendants' use of signages and invoices infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark, but dismissed the application alleging violation of the earlier order dated 28th January, 2025, holding that the restriction was confined to packaged tea and the defendants were selling loose tea.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte
Procedural Order
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Provisional measures
Dev Raj v.Puran Chand
This criminal appeal challenged the acquittal of the respondent/accused by the Trial Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued a cheque of ₹2,65,000/- towards discharge of liability arising from the purchase of a bus, which was dishonoured. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the complainant's own statements created doubt about the cheque being issued for consideration, and the Trial Court had taken a reasonable view warranting no interference.
M.Padmini v.The District Revenue Officer
This is a review application filed by M.Padmini seeking to reconsider the Madras High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018, which had upheld the Revenue Authority's direction requiring parties to establish their competing title claims before a competent civil court. The dispute concerned ownership of 9,795 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 46/1 of Pammal Village, with the applicant relying on a 1968 sale deed and a 1977 compromise decree, while private respondents asserted title through subsequent transactions. The Division Bench dismissed the review application as devoid of merit, holding that the grounds raised fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
Ashish Sharma v.State of H.P. and Ors.
The petitioner, a computer teacher at Dayanand Public School, Shimla, sought quashing of orders dismissing his complaint seeking registration of an FIR against the school principal for offences including forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The petitioner alleged that the principal was not authorized to sign his suspension order under CBSE affiliation by-laws, rendering it a forged document. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an order signed by a person lacking authority does not constitute forgery under Section 464 IPC, and such an order must be treated as valid unless set aside by a competent court.
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd. v.Oshma Aeronautics
The plaintiff, Aerotech Aviation India Pvt. Ltd., placed an order with the defendant, Oshma Aeronautics, for a Main Rotor Blade of Helicopter VT-ATA valued at Rs.17,50,000/-, paying a 60% advance of Rs.10,50,000/- via RTGS. The defendant failed to deliver the product and issued multiple cheques towards refund, all of which were dishonoured. The defendant did not file a written statement, and the court, relying on Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, decreed the suit for Rs.5,70,000/- with simple interest at 9% p.a. (reduced from the claimed 24% p.a.) from the date of filing till realization, plus costs.
Inderjeet Singh Rathore v.M/s Gulvez Rahat Shahvez Rahat & Co. & Ors.
This was a commercial suit for recovery of Rs. 4,47,319.30 filed by a fruit supplier against a partnership firm and its partners for unpaid dues arising from fruit supplies. The defendants were proceeded against ex parte after failing to appear despite service of summons. The District Judge (Commercial Court) dismissed the suit, holding that while the invoices and delivery challans proved supply and delivery of fruits, the plaintiff failed to prove the exact outstanding balance because the statement of account was merely marked for identification and not duly exhibited in evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier
Decision
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain
This was an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action against European patent EP 4 082 804 owned by Fujifilm. After Kodak filed a revocation action at the Central Division Paris, Fujifilm surrendered the patent to the EPO and requested disposal of the action, but the first instance court ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the cost decision and ordered Kodak to bear the costs at both instances, finding that Kodak had unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings without first giving Fujifilm an opportunity to surrender the patent.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
Appeal
B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura
The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
Om Prakash Rathore v.Smt. Laxmi Devi
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's order directing eviction of the petitioners from 67.89 square meters of land in Survey No. 211, Village Moja Jhingura, Shivpuri. The Court held that summary proceedings under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, could not be invoked to evict persons in long, open, and settled possession of a permanent residential structure, and that a subsequent demarcation could not revive a remedy already barred by the two-year limitation period.
Shri Ram Hosiery Group v.Jagdamba Hosiery
This was a suit for recovery filed by Shri Ram Hosiery Group, a readymade garments business and proprietor of the registered trademarks SHARP and SENTY, against Jagdamba Hosiery for outstanding payment of Rs.2,27,806/- towards goods supplied over several years. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte. The court, after examining the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.
SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 296159 from the Register of Patents under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing certain certificates and affidavits, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared on advance copy and accepted notice, with directions to file replies within six weeks.
Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.
Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.