Patent Cases

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

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

Page 3 of 411

patent interim order · Aug 19, 2026

Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 227/2026

This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2026

Orange SA, and other representatives of Bardehle Pagenberg v.HMD Global Oy, Orange SA

Paris Local Division · UPC_B593FA4F21

Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to audio decoding under the MPEG-4 Part 3-AAC standard, sued HMD Global Oy for patent infringement regarding HMD smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or higher. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, an exhaustion objection, and a FRAND defence, and later requested that the counterclaim for revocation be made conditional on a finding of infringement. The Paris Local Division accepted the conditional counterclaim approach and examined infringement first, ultimately finding that Orange failed to prove infringement because the Claimant's demonstration relied on additional corrective information inconsistent with the technical teaching of the patent.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2026

LS9 GmbH, Garmischer Str. 9, 81373 München v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH, Birkenstr. 22, 88285 Bodnegg-Rotheidlen

Court of Appeal · UPC_BBE3EEE261

LS9 GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 (a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip) owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, arguing that LS9 GmbH, whose corporate purpose is organizing seminars and publications, was not sufficiently concerned by the patent. The Central Division (Milan) ruled that legal persons always have standing in revocation actions and dismissed the revocation action only insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of auxiliary request 1, with court costs split equally.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2026

Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany

Court of Appeal · UPC_30A185A3E7

This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf found claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked inventive step but upheld it in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while claim 6 was held valid; the infringement action was dismissed on the merits. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeal consolidated the proceedings to address the cross-appeals regarding validity and infringement.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 19, 2026

Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany

Court of Appeal · UPC_2C7A42A9CE

This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 755 901, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann Packaging A/S, the patent proprietor, brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac entities regarding 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf had partially revoked the patent, upholding claim 1 only in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while maintaining claim 6 as granted, and dismissed the infringement action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the priority claims, novelty, and inventive step issues across multiple appeal proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 18, 2026

InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_BFAF05DEEB

This case concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 465 265 before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendants (multiple Disney entities) by brief of 6 August 2026. The defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 18, 2026

Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 898/2026

Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

Paris Division · UPC_17D8665002

The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris issued an order regarding a request by the defendants (parties from Liechtenstein) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the request, holding that there is no legal basis for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, unlike for Local and Regional Divisions. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 17, 2026

Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT

Bangalore District Court · Com.O.S.No.1669/2025

Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
patent settled · Aug 17, 2026

Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors

Delhi High Court · LPA 595/2026 & LPA 628/2026

These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 17, 2026

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)

Delhi High Court · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 122/2025

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

AorticLab, srl, Colleretto Giacosa, TO, Italy, and patent attorneys of André Roland SA, Lausanne, Switzerla v.Emboline Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America

Court of Appeal · UPC_C175E828A9

This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights in proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425. Emboline Inc. had filed an infringement action against AorticLab, srl, and AorticLab had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on a finding of infringement. The Local Division Munich found no infringement and did not decide on the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, re-established AorticLab's right to appeal, declared its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal admissible, and set a two-month time period for Emboline's Statement of response.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., No.88 Weilai 3rd Road, Leonard Lotz, Bird & Bird LLP, Am Sandtorkai 50, 20457 v.Micron Technology, Inc., 8000 South Federal Way Boise, Idaho, Micron Europe Ltd., Venture House 2 Arlington Square, Downsh

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_7A4EDE5733

In a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047, the Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's access to confidential technical information about their Z01M die, requesting either an 'attorneys' eyes only' order or access limited to a single employee, with a five-year bar on SDRAM-related work. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the 'attorneys' eyes only' order and the five-year professional bar as disproportionate, but granted access to four named employees of the Claimant. The Court also permitted the Defendants to withdraw the Z01M die submission by 20 August 2026 to avoid potential breaches of US export control restrictions.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 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_BD8F91F32A

Procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant (Boa Technologies Inc.) filed an Application for Permission to lodge subsequent Auxiliary Requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) under Rule 30(2) RoP in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants regarding the feature 'via a rotation of the knob (1202) in the second direction.' The Judge-Rapporteur stayed the assessment of the Application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, invited the Claimant to file an additional pleading by 21 August 2026 addressing the consequences of the CoA Decision of 13 July 2026 (FujiFilm/Kodak), and granted the Defendants an extended deadline until 28 September 2026 to submit their Rejoinder.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

Yellow Sphere & Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert (EP 3 356 109)

Court of Appeal · UPC_CE60EF8F7A

This is a final decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary expertise, the interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, the non-mandatory nature of step ordering in process claims, the disclosure content of prior art, and the temporal applicability of the UPCA's substantive provisions to facts arising before June 1, 2023.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_2FC3797DCF

This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend its case by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6, corresponding to AR PO-3D from EPO opposition proceedings) in its infringement action against Yealink entities regarding EP 3 732 827. The application was filed on 4 August 2026 following the EPO Opposition Division's oral hearing on 17-18 June 2026, where BARCO defended the patent on the basis of newly introduced auxiliary requests not previously filed in the UPC proceedings. The Court addressed whether BARCO should be permitted to amend its case at this late stage, considering principles of procedural efficiency and the interplay between UPC and EPO proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_7FF0ED71C8

This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend European Patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) in UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and related counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, that BARCO failed to abide by principles of procedural efficiency, and that BARCO did not sufficiently demonstrate the connection between the proposed changes and Yealink's specific invalidity arguments. The Court granted leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

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

Munich Local Division · UPC_9AE5A6D6FA

The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings involving Qualcomm. The court examined whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were admissible given the applicable 15-day time limit, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The court held that the appeals against the dismissal of the Rule 190 applications were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that the refiled Rule 190 application on appeal was inadmissible as it sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without new justifying facts.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

UPC Decision UPC_AEE424C001 v.Respondent

Court of Appeal · UPC_AEE424C001

This is an end decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles (Leitsätze) addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary knowledge, interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, order of process steps, disclosure content of prior publications, and the temporal applicability of substantive provisions of the UPCA (EPGÜ). The court clarified that the UPC's jurisdiction does not require substantive application of the UPCA, and that completed factual situations predating June 1, 2023 are governed by national law, while ongoing infringements and future remedies fall under the UPCA.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

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

Munich Local Division · UPC_2AE7F0EB2E

The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The central issues were whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were timely, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The Court held that the 15-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 224.1(b) RoP applied to orders on Rule 190 applications, that NST's appeals were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory time limit, and that the refiled Rule 190 application was inadmissible as it was substantially the same as the one already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.1) Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.,, 2) Roborock Germany GmbH,

Court of Appeal · UPC_0B985ECBBF

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an infringement action brought by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against three Roborock entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device). The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation of the patent, which was made dependent on a finding of infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim, and the court allocated costs at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

Lepu Medical Technology (Bejing) Co., Ltd, Beijing, China v.Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Court of Appeal · UPC_2CE5A6D600

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by Lepu against an order of the Local Division Hamburg forfeiting penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction concerning EP 2 387 951. The Court upheld the penalty of EUR 58,800, finding that Lepu had continued to offer the attacked occlusion devices (MemoCarna ASD and VSD) via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform in contravention of the PI order, and that geo-blocking measures alone were insufficient to comply with the injunction prohibiting both offering and placing on the market.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 17, 2026

Shinhoo Europe S.r.l. v.Grundfos Holding A/S

UPC Court · UPC_9B537B0726

This is a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich section) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423. The plaintiff, Shinhoo Europe S.r.l., filed the nullity action on 3 September 2025 against Grundfos Holding A/S. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed on a cost settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the defendant to pay EUR 20,000.00 to
patent settled · Aug 14, 2026

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Asustek Computer Inc & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 643/2025

Nokia Technologies Oy filed a patent infringement suit against Asustek Computer Inc. concerning Indian Patents No. 424507 and 338105. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their disputes. The court allowed the withdrawal of the suit and the defendants' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patents, granting liberty to both parties to initiate fresh proceedings if the License Agreement is terminated or expires.
patent interim order · Aug 14, 2026

M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. v.Rajesh Jain S/o Shri Kailash Chand Jain

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1171/2026

This is a first appeal filed by M/s Balaji Loomtex Pvt. Ltd. challenging an ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.05.2026 passed in a trademark infringement suit. The appellant claimed to be the registered proprietor of the trademark 'GULMOHAR' (Trademark No. 2240563), while the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts alleging infringement. The appellant contended that summons were never properly served, as service was effected on invalid/inoperative addresses, leading the trial court to wrongly draw a presumption of service. The court issued notices to the respondents and stayed the operation and execution of the impugned judgment and decree.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 14, 2026

(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_EE87466258

This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP application in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, a patent owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities) sought to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026, while LABS requested further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (other than paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, and granted the Defendants an opportunity to file further written pleadings.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 14, 2026

(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_0EFE4ACDF7

This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP dispute in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (GC Aesthetics group entities) objected under Rule 9 RoP to sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026 that addressed 'Infringement', 'Acts of Infringement', 'Jurisdiction' and 'Relief', arguing they were inadmissible. LABS countered that these sections constituted an implicit or explicit Rule 36 RoP request for further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, while allowing the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 13, 2026

M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited v.Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited

Delhi District Court · TM No. 266/2021

M/s. RSPL Health Private Limited, part of the RSPL Group, sued Sainus Pharmaceutical Private Limited for trademark infringement under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark 'UDAN' in Class 05 for sanitary napkins (Registration No. 1595657, dated 29.08.2007), while the defendant used the deceptively similar mark 'UDAAN' for pharmaceutical products. Since the defendant failed to appear, the court rendered an ex-parte judgment granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark, and ordering delivery up of infringing goods for destruction, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
patent mixed · Aug 13, 2026

M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd. v.M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Sh. Sandeep Garg, Mrs. Mansi Garg, Mr. Rishabh Garg)

Delhi District Court · CS (COMM) No. 3786/2024

The Plaintiff, M/s. Sanchar Wireless Communications Ltd., filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, delivery up, and damages against its former authorized dealer, M/s. P. Com Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'SCS' and passing off. The court found that the Defendants had infringed the 'SCS' trademark by selling counterfeit products bearing the Plaintiff's mark, and granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining such use. However, the court declined relief regarding the 'Sanchar' word mark, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages of Rs. 10 Lakhs, holding that the Plaintiff failed to substantiate its claims for damages.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 13, 2026

bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_A2F4F1442D

This order concerns the classification of confidential information in proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Both parties jointly requested that certain information be treated as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, classifying information regarding attorneys' hourly rates, billing details, and time expenditure as confidential and accessible only to a restricted circle of persons.
1 234•••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 →