Patent Cases

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1332/2026 UPC_CFI_1332/2026 Full Details

fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.

Application for provisional measures

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_871/2026 UPC_CFI_871/2026 Full Details

ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV

Infringement Action

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_685/2024 UPC_CFI_685/2024 Full Details

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH

Infringement Action

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC_5ED4A51AD4

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

Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_BD0C7D705A

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.

In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_8F67FE30EF

Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.

The Court of Appeal had previously ordered ONWARD Medical N.V. to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Niche Biomedical, Inc. filed a cost assessment application on 27 April 2026, but withdrew it the same day, stating it would refile the application at the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal by analogy to Rule 265(1) RoP without a hearing, finding that the respondent's interest was not affected and that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_1D21B1D2DC

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_0C0475B44A

Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé

Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_D1F408D491

fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.

fiskaly GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 titled 'SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS,' filed an application on April 20, 2026 seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. No main infringement action had yet been filed, but fiskaly indicated its intention to bring such an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf following the requested inspection. The order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on April 27, 2026, under Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC_604236D503

ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV

This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV based on European Patent EP3841735. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed whether further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should be considered, and weighed the relevance of English being the language of the patent and the technology field against the particular circumstances of the parties' size and domicile. The order was issued following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC_BCBBAA93A6

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH

This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.

patent settled · Apr 27, 2026

Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon

Madras High Court · 87643915

The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 25, 2026

S.S. White Burs Inc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & S.S. White Dental Private Limited

Delhi High Court · 161574477

The Delhi High Court granted rectification of the respondent's trademark registration for 'S.S. WHITE' in Class 5 and Class 10, as the petitioner, S.S. White Burs Inc, had prior use and registration of the mark 'S.S. WHITE BURS INC' in Class 10. The court held that the respondent's use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent was directed to file an affidavit indicating the quantity and batch number of the existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and was allowed to dispose of the existing stock within a specified time frame.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000057/2026 UPC-COA-0000057/2026 Full Details

Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS

Application Rop 223

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-CFI-305/2026 UPC-CFI-305/2026 Full Details

Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH

Application for provisional measures

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_FC9F61892C

Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS

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.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_9ECE2B4C36

Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH

Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 24, 2026

M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma

Delhi High Court - Orders · 65524765

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.

patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 24, 2026

Johnson Paints Co v.Johnson Paints Private Limited

Patna High Court · 53861092

The Patna High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Johnson Paints Co, restraining Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the trademark 'JOHNSON' with prefixes and suffixes or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a better common law right and that the defendant's use of the trademark would lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity and cause deception of the public. The court also directed the learned Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.

Court of Appeal · UPC_6766E610C8

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. et al.

The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich upheld an order requiring the Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, to provide EUR 300,000 in security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1. The Claimant argued that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' should relieve it of the obligation to provide security for costs, but the court rejected this argument. The court also held that merely taking out ATE insurance does not automatically remove the obligation to provide security for costs.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_617/2024 UPC_CFI_617/2024 Full Details

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.

Infringement Action

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_106/2025 UPC_CFI_106/2025 Full Details

QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.

Counterclaim for revocation

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_92A1E8747E

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.

In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_99E92B2DA9

QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.

This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-CFI-461/2025 UPC-CFI-461/2025 Full Details

Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE

Revocation Action

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC_CFI_2052-2025 UPC_CFI_2052-2025 Full Details

3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.

Infringement Action

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC_E56D0C29E6

Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE

Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an