Patent Cases

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_F878C85C67

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation, arguing lack of novelty, inventive step, and added matter. The UPC Court of First Instance (Local Division The Hague) found the patent invalid, holding that the claimed subject matter was obvious over prior art D1 in view of D3, and revoked the patent in its entirety while dismissing all infringement claims.

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_C0C65FC322

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and others

This Unified Patent Court order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two divisional patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GSK against multiple Moderna entities. Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO Opposition Division, the Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose. The Court postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings regarding EP941, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and invited the parties to file written submissions on the impact of the EPO decisions.

Court of Appeal · UPC_FCD084862B

Cybex GmbH v.NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH

Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted the preliminary injunction in substantial part, ordering the respondents to cease offering and supplying the accused child seat products and base system across multiple UPC member states, and to provide information on distribution channels. The court held that relying on a narrower claim set (combination of Claims 1 and 2) as the main request does not preclude preliminary measures, but refused to admit auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief.

UPC Court · UPC_8455D50421

Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH

This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation regarding EP 3 849 157. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the Claimant and the two Defendants who filed counterclaims for revocation.

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_63C54235F1

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 through Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter, including all auxiliary requests, was obvious over the prior art, and dismissed Maxell's infringement action.

UPC Court · UPC_F191C0BFC0

Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH

This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The claimant Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology had filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 849 157 against multiple ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid.

The Hague Local Division · UPC_AA3AE0D351

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V. and Others

This procedural order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two GSK divisional patents, EP856 and EP941, against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO opposition division, PBNT applied for a stay of the UPC proceedings. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, postponed its decision on the stay request pending the written grounds of the TBA decision, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 10, 2026

Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.

Bombay High Court · Commercial IP Suit No. 240 of 2021; Interim Application No. 1880 of 2021

Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 7, 2026

Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry

Bombay High Court · Commercial IP Suit (L.) No. 18582 of 2026; Interim Application (L) No. 18664 of 2026

Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 7, 2026

Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar (proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry)

Bombay High Court · Commercial IP Suit (L.) No. 18582 of 2026; Interim Application (L) No. 18664 of 2026; Leave Petition No. 208 of 2026

Bisleri International Private Limited sued Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, for trademark infringement and copyright piracy arising from the defendant's use of the mark 'Bislie' on packaged drinking water. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case that 'Bislie' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri,' with the defendant having merely deleted the letter 'r' and rearranged 'e' and 'i.' The court granted ad-interim relief including injunctive relief and appointment of a Court Receiver to search and seize infringing goods.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 6, 2026

Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH & Others

· UPC_CFI_52/2026

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of patent infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim for revocation pending a final decision by the European Patent Office in parallel appeal proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 651 429. The patent, relating to a vehicle communication network, had been revoked by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 July 2026, and the Claimant had filed an appeal on 4 August 2026. The court weighed the Claimant's right to a timely hearing against the need to avoid conflicts between UPC infringement measures and the EPO's revocation decision.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 6, 2026

Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.

Court of Appeal · UPC_ABE925FF56

This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.

patent settled · Aug 6, 2026

AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 426/2020

This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against MSN Laboratories Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and granted the plaintiffs a refund of the entire court fees.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 6, 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 812 to 814 of 2026 in CS(COMM DIV) No. 234 of 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.

Hamburg Local Division · UPC_F201884E8B

Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.

Hamburg Local Division · UPC_8F1BA9DBD4

Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. Dolby had brought an infringement action against Acer entities concerning European patent EP 3 079 153, and Vectis (administrator of the patent pool containing the patent) intervened. Acer filed counterclaims for revocation and FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting suspensive effect, and additionally declared Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order did not adversely affect Dolby.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_181/2025

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH

This is a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 726 883. QIAGEN Sciences had filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation were withdrawn by mutual consent. The court allowed the withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both the claimant and the defendants.

Hamburg Local Division · UPC-CoA-118/2026

Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Dolby and Vectis for suspensive effect (stay) of first instance proceedings pending their appeal. The underlying dispute concerned an order of the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in support of Dolby and declared Acer's counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay and additionally held Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order contained no ruling adversely affecting Dolby.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_181/2025

QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,

This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 5, 2026

Novartis AG & Anr. v.Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 223/2026

Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 223/2026) against Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking a permanent injunction to restrain alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 419280 (IN'280) relating to Asciminib. The Defendant filed an application seeking condonation of a 34-day delay in filing its written statement, which was allowed. The Defendant then voluntarily undertook not to commercially manufacture, sell, or deal in any product containing Asciminib or Asciminib Hydrochloride during the subsistence of IN'280, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.

patent interim order · Aug 5, 2026

Natco Pharma Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 33/2026

Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs in Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011. The private respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that challenging the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition is contrary to Sections 25(2) and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provide equally efficacious remedies. The court issued notice limited to the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for 16th September 2026.

patent interim order · Aug 5, 2026

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai

Madras High Court · WP(IPD) No. 27 of 2026

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed in respect of four Assignment Deeds involving trademarks transferred from various parties to KKR Agro Mills Private Limited and subsequently to the Petitioner. The Madras High Court, without entering into the merits of the claim, directed the Respondent to take up and dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Court of Appeal · UPC-CoA-121/2026

Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.

This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_CFI_1536/2026

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH

This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.

Court of Appeal · UPC_A654C1AFDB

Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.