Patent Cases

12,313 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,815 European UPC 1,878 US PTAB 5,620

Page 1 of 411

patent interim order · Sep 14, 2026

UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 53/2026

UPL Mauritius Limited and another have filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 before the Delhi High Court challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs refusing to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the respondent, returnable on 03.12.2026. The matter is at the initial stage of hearing.
patent plaintiff favorable · Sep 10, 2026

Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm) No. 33/2026

Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of electrical and lighting products marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', sued an individual trader (Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the marks 'SURYA CAB' and other Surya-formative marks for electric wires and cables. The plaintiff claimed infringement of its registered trademarks and copyrights, passing off, and unfair trade competition. The Commercial Court at Delhi decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant's use of confusingly similar marks amounted to infringement and passing off, and granted permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15 lakhs, and delivery-up of all infringing goods and materials.
patent defendant favorable · Sep 7, 2026

Conqueror Innovations Private Limited & Anr. v.Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 147/2025

This appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of the appellants' applications for interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants alleged that Xiaomi's smartphones, tablets, and other devices infringed their registered Indian Patent No. 244963 titled 'A Communication Device Finder System.' The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement, as the respondent's 'Find Device' feature did not read onto the essential elements of the suit patent's independent claim. The court further held that the balance of convenience favored the respondent due to the appellants' unexplained nine-year delay in approaching the court, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 4, 2026

Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc.

Court of Appeal · UPC_9F4847263F

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 4, 2026

Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.

Court of Appeal · UPC_0A725118B6

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the release of a cost security (Prozesskostensicherheit) previously deposited by the defendant in connection with appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had paid the cost assessment amount of EUR 38,230.10 to the plaintiff in full, and the plaintiff consented to the release of the security, rendering the purpose of the security moot.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 3, 2026

Amycel, LLC v.Defendant (UPC-CoA-935/2025)

The Hague Local Division · UPC_87C78AD303

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request by the appellant (a natural person and defendant in the underlying infringement proceedings) for interpretation facilities between English and Polish during an oral hearing. The court held that the appellant's legitimate interest in understanding the proceedings and communicating with his representative was not sufficient to render court-arranged interpretation appropriate under Art. 51(2) UPCA and R. 109.2 RoP. The court indicated that the appellant could engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP, provided he informed the Registry by 9 September 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 3, 2026

In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV

UPC Court · UPC_AEC30E1F04

The Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court issued an order under R. 296.3 RoP interpreting the effect of resuming a suspended procedure on procedural time limits. The court ruled that after resumption of a suspended procedure, the ongoing procedural time limits are resumed from the resumption order, taking into account the time limits that had already elapsed before the suspension, rather than starting completely anew. The court set the deadline for the Statement of Defence at October 2, 2026, and established a briefing schedule for the security request side-procedure.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 3, 2026

WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag

Paris Seat of the Central Division · UPC_B2BB57808F

This is an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an ex parte order of the Hague Local Division granting Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection of premises under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 (relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers). The Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal, revoking the parts of the order that permitted Essity or its representatives to ask WEPA personnel direct questions about technical details of WEPA's products or processes, while otherwise largely upholding the preservation measures.
patent settled · Sep 2, 2026

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Zydus Healthcare Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 414/2020

This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against Zydus Healthcare Limited and another defendant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet incorporating the Settlement Agreement.
patent · Sep 2, 2026

Ever Resource Ltd & Anr v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Delhi High Court - Orders

This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal. The matter was adjourned and re-notified for 20th January 2027 at the request of the respondent's counsel, who was stated to be unavailable on the date of hearing, with no objection from the appellants' side.
patent · Sep 2, 2026

Ashok Kumar Bansal Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders

This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a matter filed by Ashok Kumar Bansal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hindson Industries, against the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and others. An adjournment slip was circulated on behalf of the Petitioner with no objection from the Respondents. The Court granted the adjournment and listed the matter for 04.02.2027.
patent · Sep 2, 2026

Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company v.Controller General Of Patents, Design, Trademark And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders

This is a brief procedural order from the Delhi High Court in a patent appeal (C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 8/2026) filed by Abbvie Manufacturing Management Unlimited Company against the Controller General of Patents, Design, Trademark and Geographical Indications and others. The court, presided over by Justice Jyoti Singh, listed the matter for further hearing on 03.09.2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2026

InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_B1B2F9822C

InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued The Walt Disney Company and ten affiliated entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, which relates to sharing multimedia content in a peer-to-peer configuration, targeting the Disney+ streaming service in Germany and the Netherlands. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found the patent valid in a limited form based on auxiliary requests and held that the defendants infringed, ordering an injunction, information disclosure, and damages, with costs split 90/10 in favor of the claimant for the infringement action and 70/30 for the counterclaim for revocation.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2026

Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S

Court of Appeal · UPC_BF01EB7141

Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S seeking revocation of European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, which relates to a 'Wind turbine power transmission system.' The Claimant argued invalidity on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and that the patent proprietor was not entitled to the patent under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court addressed key headnotes on the interpretation of the entitlement ground for revocation and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2026

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Micron Semiconductor France SAS

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_314B2DFD6B

This procedural order concerns a dispute over the timing of new arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rejoinder in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047. The Claimant sought to have the Defendants' new arguments regarding the Z01M die prior use right and the 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die disregarded as belated, or alternatively to be permitted to file further written pleadings. The Düsseldorf Local Division deferred the decision on whether to reject the new arguments until during or after the oral hearing, but granted the Claimant the opportunity to respond in writing to the new arguments by 17 September 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 2, 2026

IAGON LTD v.Influx Technologies USA LLC and Others

UPC Court · UPC_F187F738E1

This procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for security for costs in a patent infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 878 161 B1. The defendants requested that the claimant IAGON LTD provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 112,000, citing concerns about Iagon's financial position and the enforceability of any cost order in the United Arab Emirates. The court rejected the defendants' request, finding that they had not presented in a sufficiently credible manner that an order for security for costs was appropriate based on either Iagon's financial position or the alleged undue burden of enforcement.
patent settled · Sep 1, 2026

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Alkem Laboratories Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 411/2020

The plaintiffs, Astrazeneca AB & Anr., filed a suit (CS(COMM) 411/2020) before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. IN 205147 and IN 235625 against Alkem Laboratories Limited. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, disposed of the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the Settlement Agreement to form part of the decree.
patent LITIGATION · Sep 1, 2026

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd

Court of Appeal · UPC_8BA08E2CCA

Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
patent interim order · Sep 1, 2026

KRBL Limited v.LT Foods Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 239/2026 & connected matters (240-244/2026)

KRBL Limited filed six connected petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking removal/cancellation of trademark registrations held by LT Foods Limited. The impugned marks included 'WORLD'S 1ST BIRYANI DAY', 'WORLD BIRYANI DAY', and 'WORLD'S BIRYANI DAY' registered in Classes 35 and 41. The Court allowed the exemption applications and issued notice to the Respondents, returnable on 23.09.2026.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 31, 2026

Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_3C582A8DFD

Fujifilm Corporation filed an application for rehearing under Art. 81 UPCA against the Court of Appeal's decision of 2 June 2026, which had set aside the Mannheim Local Division's rejection of the defence of private prior use and dismissed the infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm also requested that the application for rehearing be granted suspensive effect. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for suspensive effect, holding that under Art. 81(2) UPCA and R. 252 RoP, applications for rehearing do not have suspensive effect as a general rule, and that Fujifilm had failed to provide specific reasons or identify particular prejudice justifying a departure from that principle.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 31, 2026

Frimline Pvt. Ltd. v.Alniche Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 771/2024

The Plaintiff, Frimline Pvt. Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its patent No. IN'547960. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 amicably resolved their disputes through a Settlement Agreement dated 13.04.2026, while Defendant No. 2 filed an affidavit acknowledging the patent's validity and undertaking not to use the product under the mark PALMOVA or any identical composition. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement and the undertaking, while preserving Defendant No. 2's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
patent settled · Aug 31, 2026

Natco Pharma Limited v.FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 7/2023

Natco Pharma Limited filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. 298645 to the extent of claim 12 against FMC Agro Singapore Pte. Ltd and others. The matter was received on transfer from another court. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition as the inter se disputes between the parties had been amicably settled pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 31.03.2026. The petition along with pending applications was disposed of as withdrawn.
patent dismissed · Aug 31, 2026

Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd v.Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 12/2026

Safex Chemicals Pvt Ltd filed a petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking revocation of Indian Patent No. IN 298645 against Sulphur Mills Limited & Anr. The respondent's counsel pointed out technical errors in the petition, including the name of Respondent No. 1. Confronted with these errors, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty in accordance with law.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 31, 2026

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026; Review Pet. 391/2026

The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition filed by the counsel on record for the respondent in his personal capacity, seeking review of paragraphs 45-53 and the last two sentences of paragraph 56 of the judgment dated 20.08.2026 in FAO(OS)(COMM) 167/2026. The court found no merit in the counsel's contentions regarding the findings of suppression of documents in other cases, noting that the interim orders and subsequent judgments cited had already been duly considered. The court held that the counsel, appearing in his personal capacity, had no locus to seek review of the direction imposing costs on the respondent.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 31, 2026

ASR Market Ventures Private Limited v.Fitship Private Limited & Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2025 & CS(COMM) 320/2025

The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition and connected interlocutory injunction application filed by ASR Market Ventures Private Limited against Fitship Private Limited concerning the trademark 'FITSHIP' (Registration No. 5154387 in Class 30). ASR, engaged in the fitness and lifestyle business, claimed prior adoption and use of the mark 'FITFEAST' since 2017 for nutrition and healthy food services, and sought cancellation of Fitship's registration along with an interim injunction. The Court held that ASR failed to establish a prima facie case for passing off and was not entitled to the interlocutory injunction, dismissing the application.
patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 832 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV) No. 238 of 2026

Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 28, 2026

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK

Paris Local Division · UPC_FE3A22344C

This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 155 936, a patent owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. relating to a juice extraction module for a juicer. The Local Division had revoked the Dutch, French, German and Italian parts of the patent's claims as amended and dismissed all of Hurom's infringement claims against NUC Korea, NUC Europe, and WARMCOOK. The Court of Appeal dismissed Hurom's appeal against the revocation as unfounded (for the New Main Request) and inadmissible (for the New Auxiliary Requests), and dismissed its appeal against the dismissal of infringement claims as unfounded. The cross-appeal by NUC and WARMCOOK was partly dismissed as inadmissible and partly as unfounded, with Hurom ordered to pay costs including an interim award of €100,000.
patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 876 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 247 of 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited

Madras High Court · A. No. 3374 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 139 of 2024

This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 27, 2026

Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.

The Hague Local Division · UPC_F72114775F

This appeal concerned an order of the Court of First Instance (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application by Avient Protective Materials B.V. for the production of evidence to substantiate alleged infringement of EP 2 791 402, a patent relating to UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The judge-rapporteur had ordered production of two J300 UD fabric variants (30 kg each) and English-language versions of the appellants' company introduction video, but rejected requests for internal test reports and additional fabric variants. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error in the lower court's assessment of necessity and proportionality, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
1 23•••411
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →