Patent Cases

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

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

Page 30 of 424

patent LITIGATION · Apr 14, 2026

BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_CCEF8E4B23

This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 14, 2026

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_6B42A85967

In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 14, 2026

Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC_3E6D3668B3

Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
patent · Apr 14, 2026

Tricam Industries, LLC v.--

· PGR2026-00044

Tricam Industries filed a PGR petition for U.S. Patent 12,359,506, providing a corrected exhibit list that includes prior patents and a related Federal Circuit case.
patent · Apr 14, 2026

Tricam Industries, LLC v.--

· PGR2026-00044

Tricam Industries has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 13 claims of Little Giant Ladder Systems' ‘506 patent covering articulated ladder hinges. The petition alleges obviousness, lack of written description, and indefiniteness, and argues that the examiner erred in granting the patent.
patent · Apr 13, 2026

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--

· IPR2026-00336

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 2025 dishwasher patent (US 12,232,681), seeking to invalidate claims 14‑16 and 19 as obvious over prior‑art references Carr, Mailander, and Ochoa.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 13, 2026

Crocs Inc. & Anr v.Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 10436857

Crocs Inc. filed a lawsuit against Summersalt Lifestyle Private Limited for trademark infringement. The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant, restraining them from manufacturing and selling footwear that infringes Crocs' trademark. The court also directed the defendant to maintain and preserve accounts and documents related to the manufacture and sale of the impugned products.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0000858/2025 UPC-CFI-0000858/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1594/2025 UPC_CFI_1594/2025 Full Details

Application for provisional measures
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC-CFI_480/2025 UPC-CFI_480/2025 Full Details

Unified Patent Court decision.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1110/2025, UPC_CFI_1111/2025 UPC_CFI_1110/2025, UPC_CFI_1111/2025 Full Details

Application For Costs
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_CFI_ 301/2025 UPC_CFI_ 301/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_CFI_251/2025 UPC_CFI_251/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC_FD6D219DB5

Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_28B3DC5EF2

SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited

Milan (IT) Central Division- Section · UPC_A7234FD217

Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_0772FC6624

This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_2D06BE10E6

This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 10, 2026

Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_AF5649C8F9

This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2026

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0001079/2025 UPC-CFI-0001079/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2026

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1477/2025 UPC_CFI_1477/2025 Full Details

Application For Costs
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2026

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_51BDF30E35

This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 9, 2026

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_C119E5BF78

This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 8, 2026

WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC-CFI 280/2025 UPC-CFI 280/2025 Full Details

Revocation Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 8, 2026

WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC_95D854827E

In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 8, 2026

Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd v.Jai Shiv Oil Industries And Anr

Delhi High Court · 41831162

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt Ltd, directing the cancellation of Jai Shiv Oil Industries' trademark 'GOLDI' due to its similarity with the petitioner's trademark 'GOLDIEE'. The court found that the two marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, and that the respondent's adoption of the mark 'GOLDI' was without bonafide intention. The court also noted that the two parties were in the same business and had common trade circles, distribution networks, and retail outlets, which increased the likelihood of confusion among consumers.
patent plaintiff favorable · Apr 8, 2026

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited v.Meghmani Lifesciences Limited

Bombay High Court · 61254569

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited filed a commercial suit against Meghmani Lifesciences Limited for infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT'. The court found that the defendant's mark 'ESIRAFT' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and granted an injunction. The court applied the test of phonetic similarity and first impression to determine the likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the pharmaceutical industry.
patent LITIGATION · Apr 7, 2026

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0000850/2026 UPC-CFI-0000850/2026 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 7, 2026

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_249/2026 UPC_CFI_249/2026 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Apr 7, 2026

Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_2255/2025 UPC_CFI_2255/2025 Full Details

Application for provisional measures
1 •••293031•••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 →