Patent Cases

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

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

Page 2 of 411

patent LITIGATION · Aug 27, 2026

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. & Others

Aesculap AG sued Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following an oral hearing on June 17, 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) of the Rules of Procedure, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and declared the proceedings terminated between those parties, while the case continues against defendant 2.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH

UPC Court · UPC_5D8F460B15

iCAT Corporation brought a patent infringement action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants filed a preliminary objection under R.19 RoP arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of financial compensation to acts occurring after 11 June 2021. The court dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible, holding that it concerned the scope of relief rather than the court's jurisdiction or competence.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S

Court of Appeal · UPC_FFE3DBA12E

In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed procedural disputes between claimant SYPOX GmbH and defendant Topsoe A/S. The central issues were whether SYPOX qualified as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) for reduced court fees, the appropriate value of the proceedings, whether the ceiling for recoverable costs should be lowered, and whether SYPOX should provide security for costs. The court ruled that SYPOX qualifies as an SME, set the provisional value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected the request to lower the recoverable costs ceiling, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 25, 2026

Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 35/2026

Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of its opposition (bearing No.1179106) to a trademark application filed by respondent No.2, which had allegedly been allowed while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No.2 accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer that the opposition be considered before the Registrar decided on registration. The Delhi High Court set aside the registration of respondent No.2's trademark (registration No.5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH

Paris Local Division · UPC_6AA2FF5514

Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524, and the Vivo defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the parties reached a settlement agreement, both sides filed withdrawal applications pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure on 13 August 2026. The Paris Local Division permitted the withdrawal of both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation, closed the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Cilag GmbH International, Gubelstraße 34, 6300 Zug, Schweiz, v.Respondent

Court of Appeal · UPC_4F260B6FCD

Cilag GmbH International, part of the Johnson & Johnson group, sought interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-powered surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The dispute concerned the allegedly infringing products 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero,' distributed by RiVOLUTION in Germany and manufactured by Chinese companies Ningbo David Medical Device and Ningbo Verykind Medical Device. The central legal issue was urgency, specifically when the applicant could be deemed to have obtained sufficient knowledge of the infringement to act in a timely manner.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7on v.1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_6C78EEB4D7

This case concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-191/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-617/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims and closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to the exceptional circumstances of the case.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Versah LLC, c/o Salah Huwais, DDS, 2000 Spring Arbor Rd., Su, Rechtsanwalt Ole Dirks, Wildanger, Kehrwald, Graf von Schwer v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., 194, Jisan-ro 175beon-gil, Jinwi-myeon, P, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Alon Tavor POB 1128, Afula

Court of Appeal · UPC_17BAAF8DB4

Versah LLC, an exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 directed to a rotary osteotome with enhanced flute profile for dental autografting, sued HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. for infringement. The defendants manufacture and sell dental burs marketed under names such as 'Total Haenaem Bur Set' that allegedly infringe the patent's claims regarding continuously negative rake angles on cutting and densifying faces. A third defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, was dismissed from the case following an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed issues of standing as exclusive licensee, the admission of a late-filed auxiliary request, and the principles for assessing direct infringement of a product claim.

patent · Aug 24, 2026

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Vadodara v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim

Gujarat High Court

The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the common order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D-Bench Ahmedabad, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013. The Revenue raised multiple substantial questions of law regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IE, including issues relating to the authenticity of documents for purchase of plant and machinery, splitting/reconstruction of existing business, rejection of books of accounts, and apportionment of various expenses. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the tax appeals, relying on its earlier decision of even date in Tax Appeal Nos. 183 and 184 of 2020 for the same assessee covering Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, where identical issues had been dismissed.

patent · Aug 24, 2026

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim

Gujarat High Court

The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 16.05.2019 that allowed M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim's claim for deduction under Section 80IE for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Gujarat High Court examined multiple substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of plant and machinery purchases, whether the assessee firm was constituted by reconstruction of an existing business, and the apportionment of selling, distribution, and R&D expenses. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and dismissed both appeals.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.

UPC Court · UPC_DE625CE06A

The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the mutual withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) concerning EP 2 387 862 and the associated counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026), filed by Malikie Innovations Limited against multiple Xiaomi entities. The parties, having agreed to discontinue the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, were granted proportional reimbursement of court fees at 50% each.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation

UPC Court · UPC_1805E266CE

The Local Division Mannheim of the Court of First Instance permitted the withdrawal of both an infringement action (UPC_CFI_1733/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1537/2026) concerning European patent EP 2 387 862, as the parties had reached a mutual agreement before the closure of the written procedure. The court ordered a proportional reimbursement of court fees, granting 50% reimbursement to each side (15,500 € to the Claimant and 13,250 € to the Defendants). No cost decision was rendered, as all parties declared that one was not requested.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 207/2025

VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.

patent interim order · Aug 24, 2026

Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 233/2026

The Delhi High Court disposed of interlocutory applications in a rectification petition filed by Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr against The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr. The Court allowed the exemption application and condoned a one-day delay in re-filing the rectification petition. Notice was issued to the Respondents in the main petition seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 under Class 05, returnable on 08.12.2026.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No. 02/2025

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, products incorporating AX201, from Q2 2019 and AX211, from Q v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_904A264B4F

The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Lisbon dismissed AsusTek's application for a confidentiality order regarding information it was required to provide to Ericsson following a 6 May 2026 decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim. The Court held that the request was filed too late, as AsusTek had not raised confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings and provided no justification for the delay. Additionally, the Court found that part of the request—seeking to limit the purposes for which Ericsson could use the information—fell outside the scope of the confidentiality regime and concerned substantive law.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der, (Claimant) - Hansastraße 27c - 80686 - v.HMD Global Oy, Sabine Klepsch

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_4CAE6A01E8

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, a German research organization and owner of European Patent EP 2 590 concerning an apparatus for decoding signals with transients, sued Finnish smartphone manufacturer HMD Global Oy for infringement by devices running Android OS version 9 or later. The dispute centered on FRAND licensing negotiations conducted through the Via AAC patent pool and bilateral channels between 2017 and 2025, with HMD insisting on bilateral licensing and raising an exhaustion defense based on existing third-party license agreements. The Hamburg Local Division addressed key questions regarding whether a patent holder must offer only one FRAND licensing route, whether an implementer can demand bilateral licensing, and whether such insistence indicates unwillingness to take a license.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 23, 2026

1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7on v.1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_94C8B0E9EE

This case before the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna and related entities regarding EP4241767, along with a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025). Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims pursuant to Rule 265.1 RoP, having reached a settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedin

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 22, 2026

Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited

Delhi District Court · TM No. 292/2021

This is an ex-parte judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant issued groundless threats through legal notices and letters regarding the plaintiff's trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in relation to supari, pan masala, gutkha, and related goods. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the threats illegal and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. and Others

The Hague Local Division · UPC_7B1CEB43D8

This is a case management order issued by the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2590626 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). The order addresses the admission of new exhibits into the proceedings, including the Cayman 2024 Report and the 2021 BioNTech Website, and clarifies the scope of inventive step attacks and auxiliary requests that PBNT may rely on at the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_D61ACD6620

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal lodged by Windhager as inadmissible because the Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1(a) RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication is insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement does not fall within the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's subsequent application for re-establishment of rights, made during the oral hearing, was also rejected as inadmissible because the six-month time limit under Rule 320.2 RoP had already expired.

patent interim order · Aug 21, 2026

Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 944/2024

This is a patent infringement suit filed by Mold-Tek Packaging Limited against Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court, concerning alleged infringement of suit patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724. The Defendant has raised a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patents and alleged suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The court, with the consent of the parties, settled the issues for trial and directed the filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 30.09.2026.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., vertreten durch die Geschäfts, ihren Vorsitzenden Herrn Yoshinari Kitajima, 1-1-1, Ichigaya v.Zapp AG, vertreten durch den Vorstand, Dr. Stefan Seng (Vors, Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsfüh

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_CECB999CA8

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for an oral hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), sought court-arranged simultaneous interpretation at procedural cost, while the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (Germany), opposed that aspect. Applying a two-step test, the court found that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate but not at procedural cost, granting the plaintiff permission to hire its own interpreters under Rule 109.4 RoP who may use the courtroom's simultaneous interpretation equipment.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH

Court of Appeal · UPC_581A9153E4

This case concerns an application for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 relating to a child seat system. Cybex GmbH, the patent holder, had obtained an order finding it more likely than not that both direct and indirect patent infringement occurred. After initially indicating intent to enforce the order, Cybex declared it would not enforce the disclaimer portion of the indirect infringement ruling. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a valid waiver of enforcement could eliminate the need for legal protection regarding the suspensive effect application.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United States v.Groupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ

Paris Local Division · UPC_5C0F29DDBD

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

Bekaert v.Siltronic

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_BC71A74291

This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation proceeding brought by Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The dispute centers on the scope of disclosure of the expert's detailed description to the applicant, particularly regarding the protection of confidential information. The Düsseldorf Local Division applied its three-step test from the prior Bekaert v. Siltronic decision, ruling on the relevance of confidential information and the redaction obligations.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai

Madras High Court · C.M.P.No.20095 of 2026 (with CMA(PT) SR No.123355 of 2026)

Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.

Madras High Court · C.M.P. No. 18461 of 2026 in CMA(PT) SR No. 85273 of 2026

Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026

This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 20, 2026

guines, 95800 Cergy, Frankreich v.Respondent

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_2C85BB5F7D

This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by Valeo Electrification in interim injunction proceedings against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH regarding European Patent 3 645 903. The applicant sought to restrict access to certain unredacted documents and information to a limited 'Confidentiality Club' of legal representatives and specific individuals. After the parties agreed on a circle of four persons to be included in the confidentiality club, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ruled that the request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure was admissible and substantively successful, while addressing the respondent's objections regarding the differentiation between public and party-specific confidentiality.

1 2 3•••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 →