Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 601–700 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al
Infringement Action
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
Application Rop 265
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH filed infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) regarding EP4108769, which relates to methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration (TFF). Alongside the main infringement action, CureVac filed a Rule 190 RoP application seeking an order compelling Moderna to produce confidential technical evidence (CTDs and technical data sheets) to demonstrate infringement. The court
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.
Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors
This case involves a patent infringement suit filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc. and its parent company against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and related entities, which manufacture smartphones under the ITEL, INFINIX, and TECNO brands. The plaintiffs, holders of standard essential patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies committed to ETSI on FRAND terms, sought pro tem security payment under Section 151 of the CPC. The Delhi High Court, finding that the technologies were deeply interconnected and that the gap between the parties' licensing offers was wide, directed the defendants to deposit one-fifth of the amount based on the defendants' own counter offer, or alternatively furnish an unconditional bank guarantee.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.GOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.
ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited
ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 concerning dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities alleging indirect infringement through an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, holding that ParTec failed to provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product, and that granting provisional measures would alter rather than preserve the status quo. The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs, and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
Other
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in cross-appeals between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action filed by Nera against Xiaomi before the Local Division Hamburg, along with Xiaomi's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The order addresses procedural matters arising from the appeal proceedings, including the handling of auxiliary requests and prior art citations raised by Xiaomi in its invalidity attacks.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Appeal RoP220.1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
Application for a review of the Registrar's decision
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This appeal concerns a request for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Quinn Emanuel sought access to certain submissions filed in a terminated infringement case between Huawei and MediaTek before the Local Division Munich. The Reporting Judge initially granted the request, subject to redactions, and the second panel of the Local Division confirmed that decision, finding Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, which issued this order addressing procedural matters regarding the appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
Generic Order
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed NV
Infringement Action
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-26) under reference UPC_0F52BA837A, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril Gmbh concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Co
This Order II concerns an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC proceedings (infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_629/2025) relating to European Patent EP 3 107 487 B1. The applicants sought an order requiring LABS to produce specific evidence, including sales figures for Motiva SilkSurface implants, physical samples manufactured before the priority date, and various promotional and marketing materials. The Court granted the 'Primary Order' requests (with the exception of request I.c and an adjustment to request I.b), ordering LABS to produce the requested evidence within 21 days, while emphasizing the need to align evidence-gathering requests between parallel UPC and UK proceedings for procedural efficiency and proportionality.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
Revocation Action
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 ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Infringement Action
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
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 ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP294090. The defendants (OpenAI, Adobe, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation Projects, and C2PA) filed requests to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent modification request from KEEEX's June 5, 2026 memorandum. The judge-rapporteur partially granted and partially rejected these requests, declaring certain infringement-related
Robert Bosch (multiple entities) v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS & Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside orders of the Paris Central Division that had held it lacked competence and referred the infringement action to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the Paris Central Division has competence to hear an infringement action brought against multiple defendants, some of whom are established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, where there is a commercial relationship among the defendants and the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The Court clarified that the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA does not constitute an exception to the competence of local and regional divisions but rather provides for central division competence in specific circumstances.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
Revocation Action
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
Appeal RoP220.2
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
ILLUMINA, INC. v.Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
Infringement Action
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by six Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Local Division Paris confirming its jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage concerning EP 4 144 599. The Court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA — commercial link between defendants and same alleged infringement — were satisfied, as membership in the same group of companies can establish a commercial link and the alleg
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag sought review of an ex parte order for preservation of evidence dated 17 April 2026, concerning European Patent EP3289139, against WEPA Nederland B.V. The defendant WEPA requested review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The single judge denied the review, finding that no obligation for employees to answer questions could be derived from the order, that the order adequately set a time limit for initiating proceedings on the merits, and that urgency was properly assumed given the digital nature of documents and the defendant's membership in a group of companies.
- ILLUMINA, INC. v.- Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
ORDER
Honasa Consumer Ltd v.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Düsseldorf Local Division's order rejecting Occlutech's application for provisional measures against Lepu, finding that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders infringe claim 1 of European Patent EP 1 998 686. The Court of Appeal held that a braiding made from a single wire that is cut during the manufacturing process qualifies as a 'braiding of thin wires or threads' within the meaning of the patent claim. Lepu was ordered to cease commercialization of the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day for breach.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
Decision
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Application for provisional measures
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Appeal RoP220.1
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for interim measures in a patent infringement dispute. Occlutech GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 686 relating to an occlusion instrument, appealed an order of the Local Division Düsseldorf dated 31 October 2025 in proceedings against Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), which market competing occlusion devices called MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD. The appeal addressed issues including the absence of a party at the oral hearing, claim interpretation, and the admissibility of new facts and evidence in appeal proceedings.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures in the Milan Local Division of the UPC during ongoing main proceedings on the merits concerning EP 3 076 673 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that a mere increase in financial loss during ongoing proceedings is insufficient and that the applicant must demonstrate new, supervening factual circumstances indicating objective deterioration.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE, and others
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order sets the value of the proceedings, addresses the admissibility of late-filed exhibits and submissions, orders the parties to focus their arguments for the oral hearing, and schedules the oral hearing for September 1, 2026.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which allowed the rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 despite a delay of over three years. The core legal issue was whether the deadline stipulated in Rule 45 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that the deadline is directory and not mandatory, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's decisions in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta, and instead endorsing the view expressed by the IPAB in Sahil Kohli. The petition was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld, with no costs awarded.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Infringement Action
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
Infringement Action
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
Infringement Action
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Counterclaim for revocation
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application For Costs
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant sought eleven corrections to the earlier ruling, and the court granted eight of them while rejecting three, addressing issues ranging from the representation details in the header to substantive corrections in the reasoning regarding information claims and damages.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag SAS, Janssen-Cilag SpA, Janssen-Cilag A/S, Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag, Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda., Legend Biotech Corporation, Legend Biotech USA Inc. , Legend Biotech Ireland Limited, Legend Biotech Belgium BV
Counterclaim for revocation
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
Infringement Action
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Generic application
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
Counterclaim for revocation
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-12) under reference UPC_3F6FC747A3, Irdeto B.V. appeared in dispute with DJI Europe B.V.. et.al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision by the UPC Central Division (Milan) in which INSULET Corporation sought recovery of legal costs from EOFLOW Co. Ltd relating to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), the appellate proceedings concerning EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), and ancillary remedies. The court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, determining that the objective interest corresponded to the EUR 150,000 penalty at stake, with
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Generic Order
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-11) under reference UPC_0805AED25C, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
Infringement Action
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
Infringement Action
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) for an order requiring the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Defendants argued that the Claimant was a newly established litigation vehicle incorporated in Texas in March 2025, that it had no meaningful assets, and that enforcement of a cost award in Florida would be costly and uncertain. The Court addressed whether Florida's statutory requirements for recognizing foreign judgments justified ordering security, and whether the Claimant's asset structure warranted such an order.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
Infringement Action
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The order addresses requests by defendants to align procedural deadlines for lodging preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the alignment request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6's service conditions.