Patent Cases

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

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

Page 46 of 424

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 22, 2025

Novartis Ag v.Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Novartis Ag against Novarise Gastro Bariatrics & Ors. The court found that the use of the impugned tradename 'NOVARISE' by the defendants was likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's well-known trademark 'NOVARTIS' in the pharmaceutical sector. Citing prima facie evidence, the court held that irreparable harm would be caused to Novartis if the injunction was not granted immediately.

patent mixed · Dec 22, 2025

Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao v.Ashok Kumar / John Doe And Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 97279481

The Delhi High Court registered a commercial suit filed by actor Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao seeking protection against the misappropriation of his personality and publicity rights. The court granted several procedural reliefs, including exempting the plaintiff from mandatory pre-litigation mediation and statutory notices for certain defendants. Furthermore, the court issued summons to specific online retailers found to be unauthorizedly selling merchandise bearing the plaintiff's likeness, allowing the suit to proceed toward an injunction against infringement.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 22, 2025

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited & Anr. v.Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Ors

Delhi High Court - Orders · 46722084

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in a suit concerning trademark and copyright infringement related to the 'DERMDOC' brand. While granting several procedural exemptions to the plaintiffs, the court also issued significant interim relief. Specifically, it directed Scribd Inc. (Defendant No. 17) to immediately remove all documents associated with the infringing trademarks from its platform. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was ordered to disclose details of commissions earned through the alleged infringement period.

patent mixed · Dec 22, 2025

Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. v.Krishna Alias Tinku & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 184800764

In a significant ruling concerning trademark infringement, the Delhi High Court granted several procedural exemptions to Christian Louboutin Sas & Anr. while simultaneously granting urgent interim relief. The court exempted the plaintiffs from mandatory pre-institution mediation due to the urgency of the matter. Crucially, the court appointed a Local Commissioner and directed an inspection of the defendants' premises to investigate alleged infringement, setting the stage for further litigation.

patent mixed · Dec 22, 2025

M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation v.Goramal Hari Ram Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 173095877

The Delhi High Court modified a previous order that had dismissed the petitioner's applications for filing additional documents. After arguments, both parties reached a consent agreement allowing M/S Vibhava Marketing Corporation to amend its Written Statement to include details of two preceding trademark registrations ('MONKEY 555 WONDER WASH' and 'MONKEY 555 THUNDER WASH'). This amendment allows the petitioner to argue that their prior rights should dismiss the plaintiff's infringement claim, subject to payment of costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 22, 2025

Bennett Coleman And Company Limited (Sr) v.Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Ab and Anr.

Calcutta High Court · 120801047

The Calcutta High Court allowed an application for rectification, expunging a trademark registration held by Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications AB. The petitioner, Bennett Coleman And Company Limited, successfully argued that the registered mark had never been genuinely used since its inception in 2007. Relying on Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the court found that the continued presence of the unused mark constituted a wrongful and erroneous entry, thereby favoring the petitioner's claim to prior rights.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000173

Viatris Santé appealed a procedural order from the Paris Local Division that had disregarded certain late-filed exhibits from its rejoinder in provisional measures proceedings brought by Merz. However, the Paris Local Division subsequently issued a final order rejecting Merz's application for provisional measures entirely, rendering Viatris's procedural appeal devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal disposed of the appeal under R. 360 RoP, noting that Viatris could still seek admission of the exhibits in Merz's separate appeal against the final order.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000171

LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000170

This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning security for costs (Prozesskostensicherheit) under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that security for costs can only be ordered against the applicant (the party initiating the proceedings), not in their favor. In appeal proceedings, only the respondent on appeal may request security for costs, as the appellant is the party who initiates the appeal. The case involves an appeal by Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd against a first instance decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding patent infringement of EP 2 778 423.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Centripetal Ltd. v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000169

Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000168

Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:12:26 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:41 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:39:21 +01'00'

patent · Dec 19, 2025

LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000167

The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000172

GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communi

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000164

Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Digitally signed by Nathalie, Jeanne, Danielle SABOTIER Date: 2025.12.19 12:11:06 +01'00' Rian Kalden Date: 2025.12.19 12:21:08 +01'00' Digitally signed by Åsa Ingeborg Simonsson Date: 2025.12.19 12:37:23 +01'00'

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy

Hamburg (DE) Local Division · UPC-000163

This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000162

This case concerns an application by Roborock (HK) Limited for review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1, owned by Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber found that Ecovacs's presentation of facts for the ex-parte order was incomplete and potentially misleading, thereby violating Rule 192.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The court held that such a breach renders the order unlawful in its entirety, as ex-parte orders depend entirely on the applicant's truthful and complete submissions.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

DOCKET NAVIGATOR (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000161

Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000160

Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.

patent terminated or settled · Dec 19, 2025

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00017

Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a patent infringement lawsuit tied to its Lapiplasty bunion‑correction system. The settlement concludes the related PGR proceeding (PGR2026‑00017).

patent · Dec 19, 2025

Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.

· PGR2026-00017

Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Treace's bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior‑art guides and textbooks.

patent settled · Dec 19, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 124323713

The plaintiffs filed a quia timet action alleging infringement of their patent (IN'841) covering the drug 'Ruxolitinib', marketed as JAKAVI®. The defendants denied commercialization and requested protection under Section 107A. Both parties agreed to settle, with the defendant undertaking not to commercially exploit the compound during the patent's validity.

patent settled · Dec 19, 2025

Incyte Holdings Corporation v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 103448850

Incyte Holdings Corporation filed a quia timet action alleging that Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited was about to infringe its Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound Ruxolitinib (marketed as JAKAVI®). The parties reached an agreement where the defendant committed not to commercially manufacture or deal in products containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, while retaining rights for research purposes.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 19, 2025

Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited

Madras High Court · 93839496

This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.

patent dismissed · Dec 19, 2025

ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 60107060

ITC Limited appealed a matter concerning an impugned patent. The respondent (patentee) submitted that the patent, granted in 2019, was due for renewal but the patentee had resolved not to seek renewal and would not exercise its right to revive it. Both parties agreed to this submission.

patent interim order · Dec 19, 2025

Xx And Ors v.Yy

Delhi High Court - Orders · 59347419

The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant (Exemed Pharmaceuticals) from infringing the Indian Patent No. 269841, which covers the compound 'Ruxolitinib'. The court granted an interim injunction and passed various procedural orders related to the case.

patent mixed · Dec 19, 2025

Sapat International Pvt Ltd v.Niravi Consumer Llp And Ors.

Bombay High Court · 84452596

This interim application addressed allegations of contempt against the defendants for allegedly violating a prior court order. The plaintiff claimed that despite undertaking not to use the 'Sapat' mark in advertising packaged tea, the respondents continued to use 'Sapat Tea' on cash receipts and invoices. The court found prima facie evidence suggesting the violation, noting that the use of 'Sapat Tea' on sales documents amounted to advertisement. Consequently, the matter was listed for further consideration to determine compliance with the solemn undertaking.

patent mixed · Dec 19, 2025

Banayan Tree Services Ltd & Anr. v.John Doe & Anr. (including WhatsApp LLC)

Delhi High Court - Orders · 142582061

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications in a suit concerning trademark infringement and impersonation. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file additional evidence, exempted them from mandatory pre-litigation mediation due to the urgent nature of the relief sought, and directed WhatsApp (Defendant No. 2) to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) for implicated mobile numbers. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the cyber fraud aspect of the case, directing steps be taken by the Cyber Police Station regarding the filed Crime Incident Report.

patent defendant favorable · Dec 19, 2025

Indian Express And Commercial Ventures and ... v.Fundamental Hospitality Private Limited and ...

Bombay High Court · 29124043

The Bombay High Court dismissed the Plaintiff's interim application seeking to restrain the Defendants from using the mark 'HOM'. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. Key factors included the lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating substantial goodwill associated with the acronym 'HOM', the distinct calligraphy used by the Defendant, and the fact that both restaurants cater to discerning customers in premium segments, making confusion unlikely.

patent plaintiff favorable · Dec 18, 2025

Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks

Madras High Court · P133976982

The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.

patent · Dec 18, 2025

Polidoros S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. et.al.

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000175

Polidoro S.p.a., the registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 037 175 relating to a premixed burner (especially for condensation boilers), sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for alleged patent infringement. The patent was upheld in limited form following opposition proceedings, with the opposition decision published on 27 November 2024. The claimant sought injunctive relief, recall/removal, destruction, information, damages, and publication of the decision across several UPCA contracting member states including Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal.

1 •••45 46 47•••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 →