Patent Cases

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

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

Page 14 of 424

patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Siemens Healthineers AG and Others v.Hologic, Inc.

Düsseldorf (hereinafter referred to as: “Local Division · UPC_C4717FD4F5

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Siemens Healthineers AG and related entities for suspensive effect of their appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf, which had found infringement of EP 2 352 431 and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for revocation. The appellants argued that the impugned decision contained manifest errors in interpreting claim feature 4.1 and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that no manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights had been demonstrated on summary examination, and therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produktie S.A., and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.

UPC Court · UPC_66479EBF98

This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir

Düsseldorf - Local Division · UPC_516F9F2DAB

Procedural Order
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_0BEA5DEE73

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) sought protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request in part, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, enforcement consequences, and internal technical and commercial information as confidential, but denied protection for customer names and customer information, which were found to be publicly available.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.

Court of Appeal · UPC_9DB3EEE694

This case concerns Brita SE's application for renewed coercive monetary penalties against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order of the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure about infringing water filter cartridge devices and had continued advertising the infringing products online. The court imposed additional fines totaling 202,500 EUR and threatened further escalating daily penalties of 2,000 EUR for any continued non-compliance.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

Court of Appeal · UPC_F1C2BC946E

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

Court of Appeal · UPC_A5E4978580

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

Court of Appeal · UPC_FC84811F67

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC

Court of Appeal · UPC_5AF5898AC3

This order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses disputes over court fees payable on five related appeals arising from infringement and counterclaim-for-revocation proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court dismissed Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of overpaid fees in one appeal and ordered NST to pay outstanding fees in three other appeals where NST had underpaid by unilaterally halving the value of the action. The court held that fees must be calculated based on the value determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties cannot unilaterally amend that value for fee purposes.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 15, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States

Court of Appeal · UPC_B850B9DE31

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 14, 2026

Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G

Court of Appeal · UPC_B4EDE8DF39

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 14, 2026

Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. v.& Bird

The Hague Local Division · UPC_CFFF9CFE8F

ORDER
patent LITIGATION · Jul 14, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_BEE69B15FB

DECISION
patent · Jul 14, 2026

M/S Hero Moto Corp Ltd v.Sandeep Kumar And Others

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Hero Motorcorp Limited filed a civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Labour Court, Gurugram, which declined to reject a second affidavit by way of examination-in-chief tendered by the workman-respondent in an industrial dispute regarding his termination. The petitioner contended that the affidavit contained averments beyond the pleadings and legal submissions, and that the Labour Court had committed a jurisdictional error by permitting it on record after rejecting an earlier affidavit on similar grounds. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the impugned order was purely interlocutory and did not warrant interference in supervisory jurisdiction, as no patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest failure of justice was demonstrated.
patent · Jul 14, 2026

M/s Triveni Adhesive and Tapes and 2 others v.The New India Assurance Company Limited

Allahabad High Court

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged a Commercial Court's order setting aside an arbitral award in an insurance dispute. The appellants, a partnership firm manufacturing adhesive tapes, suffered total destruction of their manufacturing unit due to a fire on 02.09.2018 and claimed Rs. 3,76,00,000/- under two insurance policies with the respondent. The Arbitrator awarded an additional Rs. 1,56,68,498/- with interest, but the Commercial Court set aside the award for patent illegality and being against public policy. The Allahabad High Court dismissed both the appeal and the appellants' application under Section 34(4) seeking remand, holding that the award lacked findings on contentious issues rather than merely lacking reasons, and therefore the discretionary power under Section 34(4) could not be exercised.
patent · Jul 14, 2026

Ratna Bose Represented by Her Husband and Power of Attorney Holder, Priya Sankar Bose v.The Sole Arbitrator, Dilip Kumar Das & Anr.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenged an order dismissing the appellant's Section 34 petition against an arbitral award arising from disputes over National Stock Exchange transactions. The appellant contended that the arbitral tribunal's constitution was vitiated and that she was denied representation by an advocate. The Calcutta High Court found no evidence of bias, noted that the governing rules did not permit advocate representation, and found no patent illegality in the award, dismissing the appeal.
patent · Jul 14, 2026

The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya & Anr.

Gujarat High Court

The Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation challenged the Single Judge's order in a Letters Patent Appeal, which had directed the Corporation to incorporate yearly increments earned during the probation period and re-fix the pension of respondent Sushilaben Pranlal Pandya, a former Staff Nurse promoted to Assistant Nursing Tutor. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the pay-protection granted under Condition No.6 of the appointment order covered both salary and benefits, and the Corporation could not subsequently modify these terms to the detriment of the employee at the time of confirmation.
patent · Jul 14, 2026

Roja v.Elumalai

Madras High Court

This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 2026

Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · 3182328

The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 2026

Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs

Madras High Court · 98336192

Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
patent · Jul 13, 2026

Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited v.Strava Healthcare Private Limited

Bombay High Court

The plaintiff, Hab Pharmaceutical and Research Limited, filed a Commercial IP Suit against Strava Healthcare Private Limited for infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, and damages. Both parties informed the court that they had settled the dispute and tendered Consent Terms signed by their respective directors and advocates. The Bombay High Court took the Consent Terms on record, accepted the statements therein as undertakings to the Court, and decreed the suit in terms of the Consent Terms.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 13, 2026

UPC Decision v.Ex Parte

Paris de la division · UPC_6812D9742B

DECISION
patent LITIGATION · Jul 13, 2026

Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_BECF20770B

DECISION
patent LITIGATION · Jul 13, 2026

UPC Decision v.Ex Parte

Mannheim Division · UPC_05181544B2

ORDER
patent · Jul 13, 2026

Dr. Badri Prasad and Others v.Furnace Fabrica (India) Limited and Anr.

Bombay High Court

This was a Leave Petition filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking permission to institute a commercial suit in the Bombay High Court against defendants, two of whom were outside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The proposed suit sought a declaration that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 1st March 2014, along with its addenda dated 9th September 2014 and 9th November 2020, were valid, binding, subsisting, and enforceable with retrospective effect. The Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and perusing the relevant paragraphs of the petition and plaint, granted leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865.
patent · Jul 13, 2026

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v.Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) filed a Leave Petition under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act, 1865, seeking leave to institute a commercial suit against Shreekrupa Services Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of amounts under an agreement dated 25th May 2018. The respondent, situated outside the Court's jurisdiction, was required to supply air-conditioned buses to the petitioner from Mumbai and across Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court granted leave, holding that although part of the cause of action arose outside its jurisdiction, a material part arose within Mumbai, and the agreement itself stipulated that breaches would be tried by Courts in Mumbai.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 13, 2026

Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi High Court · CS(COMM) 778/2024

The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2026

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited

Milan Local Division · UPC_F79CEE4A6A

This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of deadlines for filing statements of defence. Cardo Systems had filed an infringement action against Ziwu and Resosport, but while service on Ziwu was completed, service on Resosport in Hong Kong remained pending. Ziwu applied to align the deadlines, and the Court granted the request, setting a common starting date of 10 June 2026 for both defendants, with a new filing deadline of 10 September 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2026

UPC Decision v.Ex Parte

Court of Appeal · UPC_EC312AEB41

Ordonnance
patent LITIGATION · Jul 10, 2026

Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited

MILAN LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_9F17088452

DECISION
1 •••131415•••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 →