Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 13 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 21, 2026

Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks

Delhi High Court · C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026

Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration of the trademark 'OFFER' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Appellant contended that the impugned order was non-speaking, showed non-application of mind, and applied the wrong legal test by requiring uniqueness rather than assessing distinctiveness. The Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order, holding that the Respondent applied the incorrect test under Section 9(1)(a) and failed to properly examine whether the mark was arbitrary and capable of distinguishing alcoholic beverages, directing reconsideration within four months.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 20, 2026

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 and Authenticity (C2PA)

UPC Court · UPC_DFD05BC501

This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 20, 2026

LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_A9F8C2DA68

Procedural Order
patent LITIGATION · Jul 20, 2026

OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0002307/2026 Full Details

Provisional measures
patent LITIGATION · Jul 20, 2026

OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_DB860C66E1

Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 18, 2026

Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)

Paris Local Division · UPC_D4EA3A654A

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 17, 2026

Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier

Court of Appeal · UPC_CD8ADAC83B

Decision
patent LITIGATION · Jul 17, 2026

FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain

Court of Appeal · UPC_13591A8FFD

This was an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action against European patent EP 4 082 804 owned by Fujifilm. After Kodak filed a revocation action at the Central Division Paris, Fujifilm surrendered the patent to the EPO and requested disposal of the action, but the first instance court ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the cost decision and ordered Kodak to bear the costs at both instances, finding that Kodak had unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings without first giving Fujifilm an opportunity to surrender the patent.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 17, 2026

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_CoA_360/2025 Full Details

Appeal
patent · Jul 17, 2026

B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura

Madras High Court

The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 17, 2026

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_D6C80B831D

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
patent interim order · Jul 17, 2026

SRF Limited v.Arkema Inc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 10/2026

SRF Limited filed a petition seeking revocation and removal of Indian Patent No. 296159 from the Register of Patents under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970, before the Delhi High Court. The court disposed of several interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing certain certificates and affidavits, and leave to file additional documents. Notice was issued to the respondents, who appeared on advance copy and accepted notice, with directions to file replies within six weeks.
patent interim order · Jul 17, 2026

Abbvie Inc v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications & Ors.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 118226543

Abbvie Inc has filed an appeal against the Controller General Of Patents, Designs, Trademarks And Geographical Indications, challenging an order dated 27.04.2026 related to Indian Patent Application No. 4759/DELNP/2012. The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the respondents and allowed the appellant to file a lengthy list of dates and the synopsis. The court has also directed the parties to file written submissions before the next date of hearing.
patent · Jul 16, 2026

City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.

Bombay High Court

The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Court relied on its earlier judgment holding that CIDCO is covered by the exclusionary clauses of Section 16 of the EPF Act, and accordingly allowed the petitions by setting aside the impugned orders.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)

The Hague Local Division · UPC_9EEA929C9A

This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_F055CDF402

This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.

UPC Court · UPC_9AAFB22CD9

This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others

Helsinki Local Division · UPC_3C3EC632A8

This case concerns an application for the correction of the Statement of Appeal and the register in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. AIM Sport Development AG had filed an appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division dismissing its infringement action and provisional measures application against multiple TGI entities, but mistakenly included TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a respondent. The Court found this to be an obvious error and ordered the deletion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the Statement of Appeal and from the register.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

UPC Decision v.Ex Parte

UPC Court · UPC_FBC2598C8A

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland

Court of Appeal · UPC_71B075FF11

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)

The Hague Local Division · UPC_94C7D2ED03

This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)

The Hague Local Division · UPC_9E0A60872B

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V (Benelux), and Acer Computer France

Hamburg – Local Division · UPC_80B5A13773

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP2304723. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP directing a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements to support its response to the Defendants' FRAND defense. With the unanimous consent of the Defendants and the third party, the Court granted the production request subject to a strict 'Highly Confidential Information' confidentiality regime.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

23 February 2026 v.Respondent

Court of Appeal · UPC_E9D7FFA707

Order
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

26 February 2026 v.Respondent

Court of Appeal · UPC_F775DF09F9

Order
patent LITIGATION · Jul 16, 2026

Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent

Court of Appeal · UPC_DCFDC91235

ORDER
patent · Jul 16, 2026

City and Industrial Development Corporation v.Union of India & Ors.

Bombay High Court

City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Vashi, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The petitioner contended that CIDCO is an excluded establishment under Section 16 of the EPF Act. The Bombay High Court, relying on its earlier judgment and the Supreme Court's ruling in Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha, allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 26 February 2019 and 17 October 2018.
patent · Jul 16, 2026

M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v.SMC Pneumatics (I) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court

The Petitioner, M/S SDB Consultants Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an Arbitral Award dated 27.09.2025 that granted it Rs. 4,48,316/- along with 18% per annum interest from 20.07.2014. The dispute arose from an Architectural, Engineering, Project Management and Consultancy Agreement dated 23.08.2012 for the construction of the Respondent's factory and office in Noida. The Delhi High Court found no patent illegality on the face of the Impugned Award and dismissed the petition, holding that the Sole Arbitrator had conducted a reasoned and structured adjudication within the confines of the contractual terms.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.

Düsseldorf - Local Division · UPC_9787BEE4D9

This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerns EP 3 777 595 B1 and addresses whether the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP), and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) should be disregarded for lacking an electronic signature under Rule 4.1 RoP. The Court granted a retroactive extension of time to 13 July 2026, when the Claimant submitted signed versions of these documents, while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_BA52E97E61

ORDER
1 •••121314•••424
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 →