Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 445 of 453

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 20, 1934

Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah

Bombay High Court · 1924150

The case involved an appeal regarding a patent application for a process to whiten almond shells. The court examined whether the combination of bleaching powder and sulphur dioxide under pressure constituted an invention, and if the plaintiff was the true inventor. The court ultimately found in favor of the plaintiff.
patent defendant favorable · Jan 23, 1934

National Carbon Co., Incorporated v.Bright Star Battery Company

Calcutta High Court · 640238

The National Carbon Company held Patent No. 17148 of 1930 for dry cell batteries. After initial litigation, they sought to amend their patent specification under Section 17 of the Act. The Bright Star Battery Company opposed this application, arguing that a suit for infringement was pending and an appeal had been lodged against the dismissal of the original suit. The Court ultimately dismissed the amendment application.
patent plaintiff favorable · Jul 14, 1925

Indian Vacuum Brake Co., Ltd. v.E.S. Luard

Calcutta High Court · 1865875

The petitioner challenged the validity of Patent No. 8018, granted to E.S. Luard, arguing that it lacked novelty and invention, and was anticipated by prior art (Hardy's Patent and existing designs). The court found that the respondent's patent was not an improvement on the petitioner's design and disclosed no invention.
patent defendant favorable · Jul 7, 1922

Jwala Prasad v.Raghubir Prasad

Allahabad High Court · 1491955

The appeal concerned questions arising from a partnership dispute involving patent rights to locks named "Kartoos" and "Impervis." The court addressed the scope of judicial power concerning patent ownership when it arises within a winding-up of a partnership, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
patent defendant favorable · Aug 20, 1914

Bhathey Sundara Rajan And Ors. v.A.A. Kuppusami Iyer And Anr.

Madras High Court · 738184

The appeal concerned an infringement suit regarding the 'Amp hill Patent Loom.' The court addressed whether defendants could raise defenses beyond those specified in the Patents Act, particularly concerning lack of subject matter. Ultimately, the appeals failed because the defendants were unable to discharge the burden of proving prior use before the patent application date.
patent LITIGATION

Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CoA_302/2025

This order concerns an application by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, the appellant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 548 648, seeking referral of its cost decision application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction over cost decision applications, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 150 et seq. RoP, and dismissed Rematec's application for referral.
patent LITIGATION

Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH

· UPC_CFI_360/2026

The defendants in a UPC infringement action requested alignment of the deadline for filing their Statements of Defence, which had diverged by 20 days due to delayed service on the U.S. defendant. The claimant objected, citing the approaching expiry of the patent-in-suit in March 2027. The Local Division Hamburg granted the request, aligning all defendants' deadlines to 11 June 2026, holding that the claimant bore the risk of the deviating service dates because it delayed arranging payment for service in the U.S.
patent LITIGATION

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_1034/2025

Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 909 047, addressing the Defendants' application under R. 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying the Defendants' estimated gross profit figures for 2026 sales of the attacked embodiments in Germany and France as confidential trade secrets, and restricting access on the Claimant's side to specific named representatives and employees.
patent LITIGATION

Illumina, Inc. v.Element Biosciences, Inc. and Others (EP3714978)

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_1920/2025

Illumina, Inc. brought a patent infringement action before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3714978 against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. The Defendants sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP, arguing the Statement of Claim manifestly lacked foundation because it omitted the 'fluidic device' feature of claim 1 from its feature breakdown, headings, and injunctive relief requests. The Court rejected the dismissal request, finding the omissions were clerical mistakes that did not render the action doomed to fail, and granted Illumina's request under Rule 9 RoP to file a corrected Statement of Claim.
patent LITIGATION

biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International

· UPC_CFI_714/2024

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants to suspend proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 (an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies). The court rejected the suspension request, holding that suspension under Rule 295 RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing, nor is it necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date. The court also admitted the plaintiff's late-filed auxiliary requests and appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_642/2025

This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone an oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026 in proceedings involving EP 3 251 983. The defendant, ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems, sought postponement citing the unavailability of its managing director due to an internal company event. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, finding no substantial grounds justifying a postponement, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_642/2025

The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for December 8, 2026, in proceedings concerning EP 3 251 983. The defendant had failed to respond to the court's proposed dates within the set deadline and subsequently sought postponement citing the unavailability of its managing director. The court held that no substantial grounds justifying a postponement had been demonstrated and that alternative dates proposed earlier were no longer reserved for the proceedings.
patent LITIGATION

Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities

· UPC-CFI-0001536/2025

This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, addressing issues related to a patent pool (administered by Vectis), FRAND/Huawei v ZTE applicability, and Acer's potential counterclaim for rate setting against Vectis. The court ordered the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and directed Dolby to file a submission on 9 March 2026.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CoA_004/2026

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction concerns a request by the Respondents (multiple Robert Bosch entities) for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 RoP for an appeal hearing scheduled for 27 April 2026. The Court rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and instead ordered that the hearing be conducted in English, finding that the Respondents' representative's lack of sufficient oral fluency in French did not constitute sufficient justification, and that all parties and the court had good command of both French and English.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CoA_004/2026

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) for an appeal hearing. The Appellant (Valeo) had filed a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 671 766, which the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris) transferred to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and ordered that the oral arguments at the April 27, 2026 hearing be conducted in English.
patent LITIGATION

Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Others

Hamburg – Local Division · UPC_CFI_2255/2025

Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against five entities of the Dreame Group and its distributors, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235 (relating to a hair care appliance attachment) by the sale of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler.' The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against Defendants 1-4 for the territory of the UPCA Contracting Member States and Spain, but dismissed the application against Defendant 5 (Cellcom Ltd.) and regarding the UK/Northern Ireland territory. The court addressed key issues of international jurisdiction, the role of an EU Authorized Representative as a joint tortfeasor, and the apportionment of costs in split cost decisions.
patent LITIGATION

Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation

Paris Central Division · UPC_CoA_622/2025

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Microsoft's applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_21/2026) concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The court held that under Art. 69(4) UPCA, only the respondent in appeal proceedings is entitled to request security for costs, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 600,000 within three weeks, while rejecting Microsoft's requests for a stay of proceedings.
patent LITIGATION

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V. (UPC_CFI_249/2026)

· UPC_CFI_249/2026

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH based on EP 3349412. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, to which the claimant agreed. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the change of language to English and set a deadline of 24 April 2026 for the claimant to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and Annexes K10 and K17.
patent LITIGATION

Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) & Others

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC CFI 850/2026

This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. The Defendants requested alignment of deadlines for filing their Preliminary Objection, Statements of Defence, and Counterclaim for Revocation, citing that only three of the four Defendants had been effectively served. The Court granted the request, finding the alignment reasonable and conducive to procedural efficiency.
patent LITIGATION

WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna v.VILPE Oy

· UPC_CoA 71/2025

WIRPLAST brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate VILPE Oy's European Patent EP 2 649 380 B1, which claims an exhaust ventilation pipe with a circular spirit level integrated on top of a conical cup in the pipe's hat. WIRPLAST argued the patent lacked an inventive step over four prior art documents. The Court dismissed the revocation action, holding that the closest prior art (D1, a roof fan) related to a different kind of device and solved a different problem, and that none of the prior art combinations rendered the claimed invention obvious.
patent LITIGATION

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH (Cost Assessment – UPC_CFI_1477/2025)

· UPC_CFI_1477/2025

This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the appeal proceedings in a patent dispute over European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants sought €101,067.47 in costs from Seoul Viosys, relying partly on a first-instance cost agreement. The court held that the first-instance agreement did not extend to the appeal proceedings and awarded only the actually incurred and reasonable costs, totaling €50,450.52.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_1079/2025

Procedural order issued by the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order addresses competing confidentiality applications under Rules 262 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure and Philips's application for the production of licence agreements. The court established detailed confidentiality regimes for both parties' confidential information and ordered the production of relevant licence agreements, while also making case management directions regarding the hearing of both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_480/2025

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

Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH (Cost Decision Proceedings concerning EP 3 926 698 B1)

· UPC_CFI_1110/2025

This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
patent LITIGATION

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_858/2025

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

Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_301/2025

Procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP2345029. Orange SA sought to have certain arguments in HMD Global Oy's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late filed, or alternatively to be permitted to respond to them. The court allowed Orange to submit its written response on the FRAND defence and denied HMD's subsidiary request to be allowed to respond further.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_ 1594/2025

SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several SEB group entities, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201 by SEB's newly launched 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices. SharkNinja subsequently withdrew its request regarding EP 201. The Court dismissed the remaining application for provisional measures concerning EP 198, finding that the patent was likely invalid for lack of novelty based on implicit disclosure in prior art, and ordered SharkNinja to pay SEB an interim award of costs of EUR 120,000.
patent LITIGATION

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

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_CFI_251/2025

Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order addresses case management matters including the value of the proceedings, clarifications of parties' requests, objections to new submissions, confidentiality, scheduling of further submissions on invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and arrangements for the oral hearing.
patent LITIGATION

Umicore N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V. and Others

· UPC_CFI_1612/2025

Procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning confidentiality in a patent infringement action involving Umicore's European Patent EP4087952 against multiple Elemental group entities. The court granted the defendants' request to classify certain technical information in their Statement of Defence and Exhibit ES5 as confidential, but expanded access on Umicore's side to include additional natural persons and technical experts due to a prior wider NDA. The court also ruled that Umicore's deadlines for filing its reply would start from the date it receives the full unredacted Statement of Defence.
patent LITIGATION

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. and Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-0002246/2025

An infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning EP3944587, brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., Orope Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. The parties jointly requested an order regarding the exchange of licences and the establishment of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the joint request, ordering KPN to disclose its smartphone manufacturer licences and related agreements to the Defendants' counsel and external experts, subject to a confidentiality regime mirroring that agreed in parallel proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf.
1 •••444445446•••453
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 →