Patent Cases

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000021/2026 UPC-COA-0000021/2026 Full Details

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Generic Order

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC_12FCF87CEE

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

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_AF74BADDDC

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

This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC_7E49D3FCBA

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

Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_5D6E43D0A6

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 6, 2026

Laser Shaving India Private Limited v.Rkrm International Products Private Limited

Bombay High Court · 148604525

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Commercial Appeal filed by Laser Shaving India Private Limited against Rkrm International Products Private Limited, upholding the lower court's order refusing a temporary injunction. The court found that the plaintiff had suppressed relevant material and was estopped from seeking relief due to its previous stand before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The defendant had commenced selling impugned products after the plaintiff's representation to Galactic, and the court concluded that the elements of estoppel were satisfied.

patent pending · Apr 6, 2026

Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks

Delhi High Court - Orders · 27492824

This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 3, 2026

Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others

Court of Appeal · UPC_5878148807

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) ahead of an appeal hearing. The Respondents sought French-to-English and English-to-French interpretation, arguing their representative lacked sufficient oral fluency in French. The Court rejected the request, holding that the inability of a representative to master the language of proceedings does not constitute sufficient justification, and ordered that the hearing be conducted in English.

patent LITIGATION · Apr 3, 2026

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-COA-0000004/2026; UPC-COA-0000013/2026 Full Details

Simultaneous Interpretation

patent LITIGATION · Apr 3, 2026

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_12B4F4F7DE

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing

patent · Apr 3, 2026

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--

· IPR2026-00266

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Zugara’s AR video‑chat patent, asserting that its claims are obvious over the Rosenthal and Vesely publications. The petition lists 29 claims and relies on 35 U.S.C. §103.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_714/2024; UPC_CFI_155/2025 UPC_CFI_714/2024; UPC_CFI_155/2025 Full Details

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.

Infringement Action

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0001536/2025 UPC-CFI-0001536/2025 Full Details

Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.

Infringement Action

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-CFI-642/2025 UPC-CFI-642/2025 Full Details

Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems

Infringement Action

patent · Apr 2, 2026

Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems

Unified Patent Court · UPC_A6A1AC6414

This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_4B29F0A81D

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.

The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_7F8A2B907C

Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.

This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_5687FDFC5C

Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems

This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.

patent · Apr 2, 2026

X Corp. v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC

· IPR2026-00235

X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of the ’744 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Palmon, Walther, and Lu. The petition invokes §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of review.

patent defendant favorable · Apr 2, 2026

Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr

Delhi High Court · 135698343

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1034/2025; UPC_CFI_931/2026 UPC_CFI_1034/2025; UPC_CFI_931/2026 Full Details

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.

Application RoP262A

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-CFI-00001920/2025 UPC-CFI-00001920/2025 Full Details

Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA

Infringement Action

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_99FFC40F66

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.

This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.