Patent Cases

This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following the execution of the inspection order at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the appointed expert prepared a detailed description of the findings. The respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but declined to do so, leading to the release of the unredacted detailed description to the applicant.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 2, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Tecno Mobile Limited , Itel Mobile Limited , Infinix Mobility Limited , Tekpoint GmbH , IRD Distribuce, S.R.O , x-kom GmbH , NTT System S.A. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_D12D5DD881

This case concerns appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against an order of the Local Division of The Hague dated 27 May 2026, which granted Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures under Rules 262A and 262.2 RoP in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 2 712 236, EP 3 836 631, and EP 3 245 744 in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of First Instance had ordered a phased confidentiality regime restricting access to sensitive licensing information to external representatives and independent licensing experts, excluding in-house representatives during the first phase. Shenzhen Transsion sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the CFI on 15 June 2026, and the appeals were lodged on 24 June 2026, requesting the Court of Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 2, 2026

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC_FCDAB02B64

This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 2, 2026

Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH v.Guardant Health, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_0189F81E29

This is a Final Order from the Court of Appeal concerning a request for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities (SA, SAS, SRL, and GmbH). The order addresses multiple legal issues including urgency in the context of multiple patents, the patent holder's obligation to investigate potential infringements, and cost allocation following the withdrawal of the application. The Court of Appeal provided headnotes on the principles governing urgency, the duty to investigate, and the allocation of costs when an application is withdrawn.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_50AF91D26E

This case concerns an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, which had found infringement of EP 2 951 625 and dismissed IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, while finding that no cost decision was required.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-CFI-1407/2026 UPC-CFI-1407/2026 Full Details

Infringement Action

patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · PR-UPC-CoA-59/2026 PR-UPC-CoA-59/2026 Full Details

Application Rop 265

patent interim order · Jul 1, 2026

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Bombay High Court · P113997965

This case involves Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Petitioner) challenging the validity of the trademark 'LULICAN' (Registration No. 2473300 in Class 5) registered in the name of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Respondent No. 1). The Bombay High Court, in its Commercial Division, framed an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration. The court directed that the Commercial Miscellaneous Petition be tagged with the connected Commercial IP Suit and listed for directions on July 15, 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_02B15BABC3

CureVac Manufacturing GmbH filed infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) regarding EP4108769, which relates to methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration (TFF). Alongside the main infringement action, CureVac filed a Rule 190 RoP application seeking an order compelling Moderna to produce confidential technical evidence (CTDs and technical data sheets) to demonstrate infringement. The court

patent LITIGATION · Jul 1, 2026

IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_272F969B79

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.

patent defendant favorable · Jul 1, 2026

Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc & Anr v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co Ltd & Ors

Delhi High Court · P115989779

This case involves a patent infringement suit filed by Interdigital Patent Holdings Inc. and its parent company against Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and related entities, which manufacture smartphones under the ITEL, INFINIX, and TECNO brands. The plaintiffs, holders of standard essential patents (SEPs) for 3G, 4G, and 5G technologies committed to ETSI on FRAND terms, sought pro tem security payment under Section 151 of the CPC. The Delhi High Court, finding that the technologies were deeply interconnected and that the gap between the parties' licensing offers was wide, directed the defendants to deposit one-fifth of the amount based on the defendants' own counter offer, or alternatively furnish an unconditional bank guarantee.

patent · Jul 1, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.GOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

· IPR2026-00187

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

patent · Jul 1, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Golden Eye Technologies LLC

· IPR2026-00186

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 30, 2026

ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_628C25A8B8

ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 concerning dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities alleging indirect infringement through an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, holding that ParTec failed to provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product, and that granting provisional measures would alter rather than preserve the status quo. The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs, and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 30, 2026

Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-CoA-854/2025 UPC-CoA-854/2025 Full Details

Other

patent LITIGATION · Jun 30, 2026

Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_4B2BC75B53

This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in cross-appeals between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action filed by Nera against Xiaomi before the Local Division Hamburg, along with Xiaomi's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The order addresses procedural matters arising from the appeal proceedings, including the handling of auxiliary requests and prior art citations raised by Xiaomi in its invalidity attacks.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-57/2026 UPC-COA-57/2026 Full Details

Appeal RoP220.1

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-52/2026 UPC-COA-52/2026 Full Details

Application RoP262.1 (b)

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-CoA-066/2026 UPC-CoA-066/2026 Full Details

Application for a review of the Registrar's decision

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-051/2026 UPC-COA-051/2026 Full Details

Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-53/2026 UPC-COA-53/2026 Full Details

Application RoP262.1 (b)

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_35D2E28D2E

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_142168AE97

This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_2B37CA997F

This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_EC2AA78244

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.

1 •••15 16 17•••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 →