Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 501–600 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court relied on its earlier judgment holding that CIDCO is covered by the exclusionary clauses of Section 16 of the EPF Act, and accordingly allowed the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This case concerns an application for the correction of the Statement of Appeal and the register in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. AIM Sport Development AG had filed an appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division dismissing its infringement action and provisional measures application against multiple TGI entities, but mistakenly included TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a respondent. The Court found this to be an obvious error and ordered the deletion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the Statement of Appeal and from the register.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V (Benelux), and Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP2304723. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP directing a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements to support its response to the Defendants' FRAND defense. With the unanimous consent of the Defendants and the third party, the Court granted the production request subject to a strict 'Highly Confidential Information' confidentiality regime.
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
ORDER
City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.
City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
Rajnath And 11 Others v.State Of U.P. And Another
The applicants filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging illegal encroachment upon Banjar (Gram Sabha) land. The Allahabad High Court held that the P.D.P.P. Act was enacted to curb vandalism and damage to public property during riots and public commotion, and cannot be invoked for cases of alleged encroachment on Gram Sabha land. The court quashed the criminal proceedings, charge sheet, cognizance order, and non-bailable warrant, observing that the proper remedy lies under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.
The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
Basamma & Anr. v.Goparappa And Ors.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court of Karnataka's judgment that had set aside Paragraph 24 of the First Appellate Court's order. The Court held that the High Court violated the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by adjudicating the writ petition without hearing the appellants, who were necessary parties whose ownership and possession rights were directly affected. The First Appellate Court's judgment dated 02.08.2021 was restored, with the Court clarifying that no opinion was expressed on the merits and granting respondents three months to pursue alternative remedies.
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerns EP 3 777 595 B1 and addresses whether the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP), and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) should be disregarded for lacking an electronic signature under Rule 4.1 RoP. The Court granted a retroactive extension of time to 13 July 2026, when the Claimant submitted signed versions of these documents, while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
ORDER
Siemens Healthineers AG and Others v.Hologic, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Siemens Healthineers AG and related entities for suspensive effect of their appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf, which had found infringement of EP 2 352 431 and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for revocation. The appellants argued that the impugned decision contained manifest errors in interpreting claim feature 4.1 and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that no manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights had been demonstrated on summary examination, and therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
Valeo Systèmes 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.
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural Order
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) sought protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but denied protection for customer names and customer information, which were found to be publicly available.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns Brita SE's application for renewed coercive monetary penalties against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order of the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure about infringing water filter cartridge devices and had continued advertising the infringing products online. The court imposed additional fines totaling 202,500 EUR and threatened further escalating daily penalties of 2,000 EUR for any continued non-compliance.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses disputes over court fees payable on five related appeals arising from infringement and counterclaim-for-revocation proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court dismissed Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of overpaid fees in one appeal and ordered NST to pay outstanding fees in three other appeals where NST had underpaid by unilaterally halving the value of the action. The court held that fees must be calculated based on the value determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties cannot unilaterally amend that value for fee purposes.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Kamal Mahanty v.Jhantu Mohapatra
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a revisional application filed by Kamal Mahanty seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arising from Complaint Case No. C-323 of 2016 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Contai, Purba Medinipur. The court held that a prima facie case was made out based on the presentation of the cheque, its return with the endorsement 'Payment stopped by Drawer,' and the failure to comply with the statutory demand notice. The petitioner's contentions regarding limitation, contractual defenses, and the alleged absence of a money-lending license were rejected as triable issues of fact.
Murti Markandeshwar Ji Maharaj Gopal Ki Bagiya City Jhansi v.Smt. Jyoti Gangwani And Another
The petitioner, a temple/trust entity, filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Rent Tribunal that set aside the Rent Authority's order allowing its impleadment in eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The petitioner had sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC to dispute the landlord's title over the premises. The Court held that proceedings under Section 21 of the Act are confined to adjudication of landlord-tenant disputes and cannot be expanded to adjudicate complex title questions, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.
M/S Bansal Construction Co. v.Union of India
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a District Judge's order setting aside an arbitral award in favor of M/S Bansal Construction Co. The appellant had been awarded a railway contract in 2004 for CTR of 15.75 km of non-circulated yard lines, which could not be completed due to the respondent's failure to provide P-Way materials. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed 7 out of 8 claims and awarded ₹22,44,464/-, but the Commercial Court set aside the award holding that pendente lite interest could not be granted as the contract expressly prohibited it. The Delhi High Court upheld the District Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G
ORDER
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. v.& Bird
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu
DECISION
Dr. Kavitha.A v.Brincy Mani
This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenged an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in a transfer dispute within the Dairy Development Department. The 1st respondent, Brincy Mani, a Deputy Director posted at Thrissur, had challenged her transfer to Kozhikode as Principal of the Dairy Training Centre, alleging mala fides and political motivation. The petitioner, Dr. Kavitha.A, who was to be transferred to Thrissur under the same order, sought to vacate the Tribunal's interim order. The Tribunal disposed of the original application, and Dr. Kavitha.A approached the High Court challenging that order.
Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd. v.Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd.
The plaintiff, M/s. Rubicon Inspection Systems Pvt. Ltd., filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of Rs. 7,78,355/- from the defendant, M/s. Paras Railtech Pvt. Ltd., for part work allegedly executed under a work order dated 15.12.2020 relating to desilting operations on sewer lines and storm drains at Najafgarh, Delhi (DMRC Contract CC 126A). The defendant contended that the plaintiff abandoned the work without valid cause, that the invoice was forged with inflated rates, and that the agreed 20% discount was not applied. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove actual execution, measurement, and certification of the work, and that the invoice did not match the rates specified in the work order, dismissing the suit.
M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd v.Sandeep Kumar And Others
M/S Hero Motorcorp Limited filed a civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Labour Court, Gurugram, which declined to reject a second affidavit by way of examination-in-chief tendered by the workman-respondent in an industrial dispute regarding his termination. The petitioner contended that the affidavit contained averments beyond the pleadings and legal submissions, and that the Labour Court had committed a jurisdictional error by permitting it on record after rejecting an earlier affidavit on similar grounds. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was purely interlocutory and did not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction, as no patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice was demonstrated.
M/s Triveni Adhesive and Tapes and 2 others v.The New India Assurance Company Limited
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award in an insurance dispute. The appellants, a partnership firm manufacturing adhesive tapes, suffered total destruction of their manufacturing unit due to a fire on 02.09.2018 and claimed Rs. 3,76,00,000/- under two insurance policies with the respondent. The Arbitrator awarded an additional Rs. 1,56,68,498/- with interest, but the Commercial Court set aside the award for patent illegality and being against public policy. The Allahabad High Court dismissed both the appeal and the appellants' application under Section 34(4) seeking remand, holding that the award lacked findings on contentious issues rather than merely lacking reasons, and therefore the discretionary power under Section 34(4) could not be exercised.
Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.
This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.
The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
Roja v.Elumalai
This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the heirs of Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, challenging the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986, a corrigendum thereto dated 5 April 2017, and a subsequent notice dated 27 April 2017 under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning their land at Kurla, Mumbai. The court found that the acquisition process failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirements, rendering the award and corrigendum void. The court directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894, and publish a fresh award within three months.
Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited
The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
DECISION
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
DECISION
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi v.Central Bureau of Investigation
This criminal appeal was filed by K.D. Trivedi Krishna Dutt Trivedi challenging his conviction and five-year sentence imposed by the Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption (Central), Lucknow in Case No. 12 of 1998 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The primary issue before the Court was procedural—whether the trial court was obligated to send its original record rather than merely a certified copy, as required by Rule 9 of Chapter XVIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. The Court directed the trial court to forward its original record and listed the appeal for hearing on 17.08.2026.
Zarina Dada And 3 Ors v.The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) with respect to land at Kurla, Mumbai, originally notified for acquisition for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that their land was not included in the original 1986 award, and the SLAO's attempt to include it through a corrigendum after 31 years was without legal authority. The Bombay High Court held the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to be illegal and void, directing the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation under the LA Act, 1894 within three months.
Zarina Dada And Others v.The State of Maharashtra And Others
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the legality of a land acquisition award dated 23 September 1986 and a corrigendum dated 5 April 2017 issued after 31 years, which sought to include the petitioners' land at Kurla, Mumbai within the purview of the original award for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road. The petitioners, heirs of the original landowner Late Ahamad Izzat Mohammed Hasham Dada, contended that the corrigendum was without legal authority and that the mandatory procedural requirements under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were not complied with. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition, declaring the award, corrigendum, and consequential notice under Section 12(2) as illegal and void, and directed the respondents to undertake a fresh exercise for determination of compensation at current market value within three months.
Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.
This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
Opella Healthcare Group v.Pureca Laboratories Pvt Ltd
This is an order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 552/2024) before the Delhi High Court concerning an application (I.A. 4622/2025) filed under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment. The Plaintiff, Opella Healthcare Group, submitted that the Defendant's principal line of defence—its trademark and copyright registrations in the label mark and artistic work of PHENSERYL—had been cancelled by the Court vide judgment dated 12.11.2024 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 9/2024. The Defendant did not appear, and the Court deferred adverse orders, listing the matter for 20.07.2026 with a warning that if the Defendant remained unrepresented, the Court would proceed to hear the summary judgment application.
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
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 deadlines for filing statements of defence. Cardo Systems had filed an infringement action against Ziwu and Resosport, but while service on Ziwu was completed, service on Resosport in Hong Kong remained pending. Ziwu applied to align the deadlines, and the Court granted the request, setting a common starting date of 10 June 2026 for both defendants, with a new filing deadline of 10 September 2026.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
Ordonnance
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
DECISION
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Decision
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A.
order
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This is a procedural order of the UPC Local Division The Hague concerning a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026. The panel reviewed whether a counterclaim for rate-setting filed by the Acer defendants against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. (which had intervened in support of claimant Dolby International AB) should be declared inadmissible. The panel denied the review, confirming the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible, and alternatively added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby, while granting leave to appeal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute and University-Industry Cooperation Foundation of Korea Aerospace University v.Meta Platforms, Inc. and Others
Procedural order of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court staying proceedings in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties, comprising ETRI and Korea Aerospace University as claimants and multiple Meta entities as defendants, jointly requested a stay because they had reached an amicable solution in out-of-court negotiations requiring further implementation. The Court granted the stay and ordered the parties to either withdraw their actions or update the Court by 10 August 2026.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 that accepted a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. The panel denied the review sought by claimant Dolby and intervener Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may be subject to a counterclaim. The court further added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby in the alternative, and granted leave to appeal.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed the court fees payable for AIM's appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division disposing of a provisional measures application. The Court held that the appeal fee of EUR 20,400 paid by AIM was both necessary and sufficient, classifying the appeal as one under R. 220.1(a) RoP pursuant to R. 363.2 RoP. AIM was also invited to clarify why Respondent 6 (TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited) was included in the appeal proceedings concerning the PI case.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 v.Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier
ORDER
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
ORDER
Promosome LLC v.Promosome LLC
Decision
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply, leading the Court to treat the Plaintiff's contentions as uncontroverted. The Bombay High Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear before the Bombay High Court. The Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to search, seize, and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trademark at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
Withdrawal (RoP265)
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered 'HAMON' trademarks against Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, which was using 'HAMON COOLING' and 'HCS HAMON COOLING' as marks and as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the HAMON mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the defendants were derivative users whose authority to use the marks had expired, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff.
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-07-06) under reference UPC_4F034E8470, Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA appeared in dispute with Polidoro S.p.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Wealth, Inc. v.--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte
ORDER
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Provisional measures
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Application Rop 333
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., v.Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court addressed the claimant Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.'s request under Rule 190 RoP for production of source code extracts from the defendant (related to Roborock robot vacuum models), as well as a confidentiality request under Rule 262A RoP and a request for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 RoP. The court held that the Rule 190 RoP request was premature because no specific contested facts existed at the time of submission, and that such requests are intended to produce evidence for substantiated, relevant, and contested facts rather than to investigate unknown facts.
Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v.Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.
This is an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, filed by Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited against the refusal of its application to register the word mark 'ANAAR' in Class 25. The Registrar had rejected the application outright without advertisement, citing similarity with an earlier registered mark under Section 11(1). The Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Registrar to cause the application to be advertised under the proviso to Section 20(1), enabling consideration of any objections from third parties.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
Provisional measures
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited, Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
*** v.AMYCEL, LLC
Generic application
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited, Infinix Mobility Limited, Tekpoint GmbH, IRD Distribuce, S.R.O, x-kom GmbH, NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
Appeal
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
Appeal RoP220.1
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following the execution of the inspection order at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the appointed expert prepared a detailed description of the findings. The respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but declined to do so, leading to the release of the unredacted detailed description to the applicant.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.
This is a Final Order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities (SA, SAS, SRL, and GmbH). The order addresses multiple legal issues including urgency in the context of multiple patents, the patent holder's obligation to investigate potential infringements, and cost allocation following the withdrawal of the application. The Court of Appeal provided headnotes on the principles governing urgency, the duty to investigate, and the allocation of costs when an application is withdrawn.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
This case concerns an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, which had found infringement of EP 2 951 625 and dismissed IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, while finding that no cost decision was required.