Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 701–800 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Application for provisional measures
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
Infringement Action
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
Generic Order
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
Infringement Action
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 Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-08) under reference UPC_0C3E23552C, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS appeared in dispute with Amgen Inc. a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
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 Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
Infringement Action
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This procedural order concerns an application by Align Technology, Inc. under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Proceedings to disregard late-filed non-infringement arguments raised by the Angelalign defendants in their rejoinder. Align argued that the defendants introduced new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 of Claim 1 for the first time in their rejoinder, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings. The defendants requested dismissal of Align's requests and an opportunity to reply in writing to the disputed paragraphs and exhibits.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
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 Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Application for provisional measures
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 Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of prior court decisions concerning European Patent EP3119235. During an oral hearing in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement that no cost reimbursement would be sought. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
Pinterest, Inc. v.--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
Okta, Inc., et al. v.--
Okta has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all sixteen claims of Thales’s ’103 patent covering security policies for eID wallets on mobile devices. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Makhotin, Coulomb, Jones and others.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.,, 94404, USA v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Procedural Order
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Infringement Action
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against multiple defendants including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities concerning EP 2 618 514. The Claimant requested permission to withdraw the infringement action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Local Division Hamburg permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of AccuSearch’s ’959 patent covering annotated search‑result displays, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oppo
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-02) under reference UPC_65DAC4432F, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oppo concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 2 June 2026, addresses multiple legal questions arising from proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174 validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. The headnotes cover issues of claim construction (particularly regarding numerical values and manufacturing tolerances), private prior use under Article 28 UPCA and German law, front-loaded proceedings under Rule 29(c) RoP, international jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA and Brussels I bis, and the exercise of international jurisdiction including the application of comity principles when patents validated outside the UPC territory are at issue.
LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
LG Display has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,293,691 covering an OLED display device. The petition asserts indefiniteness, lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Appeal RoP220.2
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Revocation Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement 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
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order summarizes the interim conference held in two related patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025) brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD Global Oy concerning European patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The judge-rapporteur recorded the parties' agreement on the value of the proceedings, proposed a framework for reimbursable legal costs, and outlined the schedule and structure of the upcoming oral hearing. Key legal issues were identified for each case, covering claim construction, validity, priority, and infringement questions relating to audio coding/upmixing technology.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
This case involves Nokia Technologies Oy as the plaintiff and counter-defendant against a large group of defendants and counter-plaintiffs associated with the Geely automotive group, including Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, Geely Automobile Holdings, multiple Lynk & Co sales entities across Europe, Zeekr entities, and Lotus Cars entities. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court under case numbers UPC_CFI_661/2025 and UPC_CFI_236/2026. The decision was issued on June 1, 2026, though the substantive reasoning and operative ruling are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
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)
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris concerning a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by ADOBE against an earlier order of the judge-rapporteur dated 24 April 2026. ADOBE sought to have KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million), introduced in its reply brief of 5 March 2026, declared inadmissible or summarily dismissed. The panel rejected ADOBE's revision request in its entirety, confirming that the provisional damages claim was consistent with the procedural protocol,
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-01) under reference UPC_D574D5017B, Boa Technology Inc. appeared in dispute with Shinkyung Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and artistic works. The court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation and effecting advance service. The defendants were directed to block and suspend the impugned website and preserve domain registration records.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
Infringement Action
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Infringement Action
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, sued VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary operating an energy recovery unit in Montbéliard) and MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the combustion cell) for infringement of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1. After the Central Division of Paris upheld the patent in modified form, the Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive proce
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1, owned by Hybridgenerator ApS, relating to a mobile hybrid generator system for delivering electrical power. The claimant, Hybridgenerator ApS, brought proceedings against HGSystem ApS, InfoTech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen (a former director of Hybridgenerator who is now associated with the defendant companies and is named as the inventor of the patent). The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds including sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that an invention is sufficiently disclosed only if the specification enables the skilled person to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope of protection.
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action against numerous entities within the Geely corporate group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, Nokia requested, with the consent of the defendants, the admission of the withdrawal of the infringement action. The defendants in turn requested, with the consent of Nokia, the withdrawal of their invalidity counterclaim, with the matter concerning the admission of the withdrawal and the reimbursement of court fees.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr v.Microsoft Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Application for provisional measures
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, against Dyson Technology Limited in connection with allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances, concerning EP3119235. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the w
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-28) under reference UPC_8B29C7AB44, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Infringement Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
Infringement Action
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
Infringement Action
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Application RoP262.1 (b)
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
Revocation Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
Appeal RoP220.2
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This order concerns the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1. The plaintiff Brita SE had previously obtained a decision on April 16, 2026, finding indirect infringement by the defendant Wessper Sp. z o.o.'s filter cartridges and ordering the defendant to provide structured information about its infringing products. The present order, issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as Rapporteur, addresses procedural measures under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure to safeguard confidential information during the disclosure process.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application for security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action. BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) sued multiple BYD Group entities for infringement of European Patent EP2937706 before the Paris Local Division. BYD sought security for costs in the amount of EUR 400,000, arguing that BMSI is a financially empty shell similar to a non-practicing entity, with no publicly disclosed financial information or liquid assets. BMSI countered by proposing a reduced security amount of EUR 300,000 and a seven-week timeframe for provision.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-27) under reference UPC_44EB647500, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Cybex GmbH et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
This is a procedural order (Rule 105 RoP) issued by the Rapporteur of the Central Division (Milan) in a nullity action concerning European Patent No. 2223589. The order records the outcome of a digital interim hearing held on 13 May 2026, addressing the plaintiff's representation, the value in dispute, procedural costs, and the preliminary admissibility of the nullity claim under Articles 47.6 and 73.4 EPGÜ and Rules 361–363 RoP. The court indicated it provisionally considers the action admissible and invited the parties to agree on the value in dispute and cost estimates ahead of the oral hearing.
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.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 778 423, owned by Grundfos Holding A/S, relating to a centrifugal pump unit, particularly a heating circulation pump unit. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of 8 May 2025 concerning infringement and a counterclaim for invalidity. The Court of Appeal addressed whether submissions concretized on appeal were new, the interpretation of patent claims in light of the prior art, and the relevance of the procedural language for claim construction.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.a. sued Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) for infringement of European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 concerning a motorcycle tyre with both on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, finding the patent valid, and held that SYR had infringed the patent by offering and marketing its Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyres at the EICMA 2024 trade fair and through its website.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - Ericsson Holding International B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Infringement Action
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD
Infringement Action
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Counterclaim for revocation
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - Ericsson Holding International B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Infringement Action
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V
Application Rop 223
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2519412 for motorcycle tires. After Tianjin Kingtyre failed to enter an appearance within the three-month deadline following service of the statement of claim, Pirelli sought a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The court granted the default decision, finding literal infringement of the patent and ordering injunctive relief, penalties, publication, and cost reimbursement.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled "motorcycles tyre," relating to a motorcycle tyre offering high road and off-road performance. Pirelli alleged that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court found SYR had infringed the patent by offering and placing the infringing tyres on the market in several Contracting Member States, and ordered injunctive relief, publication, penalties, and damages in favor of Pirelli.
- Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - Ericsson Holding International B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect filed by Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji against an order of The Hague Local Division requiring them to produce UD fabric samples and a company introduction video under Rule 190 RoP. The appellants argued that compliance within the two-week deadline was impossible due to Chinese military-grade export control regulations requiring 1-2 months to obtain permits. The Court extended the compliance deadline to 15 July 2026 while rejecting the appellants' other arguments regarding procedural violations and manifest errors.
Safex Chemicals India Limited v.Safex Seed India Llp & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Safex Chemicals India Limited, restraining Safex Seed India Llp & Anr from using the trademark 'SAFEX' in relation to agrochemical products. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used the trademark 'SAFEX' since 1991 and had established a substantial sales turnover and widespread advertising and promotion of its products under the trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Google Ireland Limited et. al.
Infringement Action
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application RoP262A
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action