Patent Cases

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

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

Page 40 of 424

patent · Feb 1, 2026

Resmed Corp. v.Fractus, S.A.

· IPR2026-00191

Resmed has filed a petition to cancel all 20 claims of Fractus’s ’677 antenna patent, alleging lack of novelty, obviousness, and insufficient written description for 4G standards. The petition relies on prior‑art references Dou, Ciais‑Quadband, Nakano, and Baliarda‑543.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 31, 2026

Pawan Kumar Surana v.S M Ravi @ Pushparaj; M/s.Sri Sai Enterprises

Bangalore District Court · 53651094

The plaintiff, an inventor associated with Rain Filter Industries, filed a suit alleging that the defendants were manufacturing and selling tank filters that infringed upon his patented invention (Patent No. 351773). The court found infringement and granted permanent injunction against the defendants.
patent · Jan 30, 2026

FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH. et. al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000102

This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
patent · Jan 30, 2026

Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation

· IPR2026-00246

Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,857,064 covering a belt‑mounted tool pouch. The challenger alleges anticipation by Albrecht and obviousness over combinations of Albrecht, Gabriel, and Glock, and requests the Board to institute the review.
patent remanded · Jan 30, 2026

Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 139068985

Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
patent pending · Jan 30, 2026

Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 81394194

Jfe Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent application number 279/DEL/2015. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
patent remanded · Jan 30, 2026

Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 35119541

The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of Patent Application IN'563 on grounds of lack of inventive step. The application relates to an air-cooling system for pre-cooling ambient air using a mist of water in an HVAC system. The High Court found the impugned order unreasoned and failed to follow the five steps required for determining obviousness, leading to the remand of the matter.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 30, 2026

Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.

Calcutta High Court · 164408130

Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
patent · Jan 29, 2026

Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000104

This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
patent · Jan 29, 2026

EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000103

This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
patent · Jan 29, 2026

Google LLC v.Clear Imaging Research LLC

· IPR2026-00181

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Clear Imaging’s 32‑claim video‑stabilization patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing claim‑term constructions. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jan 29, 2026

M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · 124226422

The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
patent pending · Jan 29, 2026

Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 120093982

Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
patent · Jan 28, 2026

Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l.,KNARR Vertriebs GmbH

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000106

This order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 27 January 2026 in consolidated proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025. The order addresses procedural matters including the exploration of settlement, clarification of the Claimant's conditional auxiliary requests filed under R. 30.1 RoP, the admissibility of late-filed technical drawings (Annexes 27/28–33/34), and the parties' agreement on the use of a specific equivalence criterion from a prior UPC decision. The Court deemed the late-filed annexes admissible while reserving judgment on their relevance, and confirmed that the auxiliary requests would only be assessed if the counterclaim for revocation is upheld.
patent · Jan 28, 2026

Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA. a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000105

Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
patent remanded · Jan 28, 2026

Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mold-Tek Packaging Limited

Delhi High Court · 132390569

Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd filed a suit for infringement against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd regarding two patents related to pail closure systems and tamper-proof lids. The dispute reached the Delhi High Court, where appeals were heard concerning the validity of the patents and the status of interim injunctions.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 28, 2026

Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 95998423

Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 27, 2026

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 72154846

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC-000113

This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1. Nanoval had previously filed an infringement action against ALD France's parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH) at the Munich Local Division, where the parent had already filed a nullity counterclaim. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that ALD France lacked a separate interest in filing its own nullity action. The court held that a subsidiary's own business activity establishes an independent interest in filing a nullity action, and that related companies are not automatically the 'same party' under Article 33(4) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement merely because one is the parent of the other.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon Europe Core S.a.r.l, Amazon EU S.a.r.l., Amazon Media EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc. Amazon.com Services LLC v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000112

1 ORDER of the President of the Court of First Instance in the proceedings before the Local Division MANNHEIM Pursuant to R. 323 RoP (language of the proceedings) Issued on 26 January 2026 KEYWORDS - Change of the language of the proceedings – Art. 49 (5) UPCA and R. 323 RoP
patent · Jan 26, 2026

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000111

This order from the Court of Appeal addresses a request under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the confidentiality of information in written pleadings or evidence. The Court clarified that only Rule 262A RoP permits restricting the opposing party's use of confidential information, and that a Rule 262.2 request does not automatically grant provisional protection against disclosure. The Court further explained the proper procedure for confidentiality orders, including the requirement to file a simultaneous Rule 262A application when lodging confidential documents, and noted that documents uploaded under HC code without a legal basis will routinely be reclassified to M code to ensure access by the other parties.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and APPLE Inc. (intervener)

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000115

This order of the Court of Appeal concerns a confidentiality request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court addressed the proportionality of measures protecting confidential information, balancing the right to an effective remedy and fair trial against the interests of parties and third parties. Key issues included whether employees of a party should be granted access to confidential information, the treatment of licence agreement information, and the liability framework for breaches of confidentiality obligations.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000114

This Final Order of the Court of Appeal concerns an application for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (as appellant/claimant) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. (as respondents/defendants, jointly 'ASUS'). The Court addressed the proportionality of confidentiality measures, particularly regarding access to confidential information by employees of the parties and the application of an 'External Eyes Only' regime. The Court established that employees of a party should generally be granted access to confidential information, subject to appropriate judicial control, and that potential harm to third parties from licensing-related confidential information may be mitigated by barring the employee from involvement in licensing negotiations for a defined period.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000108

This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendant, Nordmeccanica S.p.A., to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited based on European patent EP3067437. The Defendant argued that neither party has a business connection with Germany, that English is the prominent language in the relevant technical field, and that the change would promote procedural economy. The Claimant did not submit additional comments on the merits of the application.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

Applicant *** v.Respondent

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000107

The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 29 August 2025, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989 under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, but the Registrar rejected it as filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The President held that the one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules is not discriminatory and dismissed the petition.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
patent · Jan 26, 2026

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation

· IPR2026-00234

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 24, 2026

M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · 39865934

The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 24, 2026

M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur · 120495828

The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
patent · Jan 23, 2026

Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC-000117

Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
1 •••394041•••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 →