Patent Cases

SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany v.Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_5A90B0CDA0, SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany appeared in dispute with Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_C2490E49A9

22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-

A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_59347E41E1

Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent v.Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk

In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_59347E41E1, Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent appeared in dispute with Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

München Division · UPC_DABE36CD7F

Reinhausen GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. Nic v.Respondent

Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 concerning a selector for an on-load tap-changer, sought an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The applicant alleged that the respondent was exhibiting a potentially infringing on-load tap-changer designated 'DET-24kV' at its booth. The Local Chamber Munich granted the inspection order without prior hearing of the respondent, appointing an expert, an assistant, and court bailiffs to carry out the inspection, seizure of documents, and detailed technical analysis of the exhibited product.

Court of Appeal · UPC_E0750F760E

WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney D v.ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden

This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 205 of 2026

M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries

M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.

Madras High Court · OA Nos. 724 to 726 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 209 of 2026

Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)

The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 23/2025

Cipla Limited v.Union of India & Ors. (including Registrar of Trade Marks)

This case involves a writ petition filed by Cipla Limited seeking restoration of its trademark 'NO DARAR' (application no. 1694972), which had been removed from the register. The Delhi High Court had previously allowed Cipla to file restoration and renewal applications, and the trademark was subsequently reflected as 'Registered' on the official website. A third-party applicant, who was not a party to the original proceedings, sought to be impleaded and to recall the earlier orders. The Delhi High Court dismissed all three applications filed by the applicant, holding that the renewal of a trademark is strictly between the Registry and the registered proprietor, and that the proper recourse for an aggrieved third party is a rectification application.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 763/2026

Incyte Holdings Corporation & Ors. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd

The plaintiffs, Incyte Holdings Corporation and others, filed a patent infringement suit against Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning Indian Patent No. 269841 (IN'841), which protects the novel compound Ruxolitinib used in treating myelofibrosis. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant intended to commercially launch Ruxolitinib-based products, which would infringe Claims 1, 17, and 21 of IN'841. The defendant undertook not to commercially manufacture, launch, import, export, or deal in any product containing Ruxolitinib during the patent's validity, and the suit was disposed of based on this undertaking, while preserving the defendant's rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research use.

patent LITIGATION · Jul 24, 2026

Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., Carnegieplein 5, 2508 DH Den, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_4F0ED51A9B

This order concerns an application by Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case (Dolby v. Optoma) concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. The applicant sought access to better understand why Dolby considered the patent essential to the Opus Audio Codec standard. The court held the application partially admissible and partially well-founded, granting limited access to the statement of claim while rejecting access to exhibits as insufficiently specified.

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_9FF93D3A0F

Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.

In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-23) under reference UPC_9FF93D3A0F, Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) appeared in dispute with 2SEVENTY BIO, INC. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.

Court of Appeal · UPC_921BD03A94

Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin, v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem, Rechtsanwalt Jens Künzel, LL.M., KRIEGER MES & GRAF v. der

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order on a third-party request for access to court files from a completed patent infringement case between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The applicant, the law firm Gulde & Partner, sought access to pleadings and evidence for internal training and preparation purposes before the Unified Patent Court. The original parties initially opposed the request citing trade secret concerns, but the plaintiff later withdrew its confidentiality objections while the defendant narrowed its claims to specific information about distribution channel removal measures. The court held the request admissible and partially meritorious, granting access to most documents but with redactions where confidentiality interests prevailed.

Court of Appeal · UPC_2F5A980E61

Verfahrensvertreter: Linklaters LLP, Taunusanlage 8, 60329 F, Anlage 35-37, 60327 Frankfurt am Main v.Golkowsky, Joachimsthaler Straße 10-12, 10719 Berlin, PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Schmellerstraße 4, 80337 Mü

This case concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff applied to withdraw the nullity action, and the defendant consented. The court granted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings, but reduced the plaintiff's request for a 60% reimbursement of court fees to 50%, applying the amended Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2026.