Patent Cases

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00305

Uber and its freight subsidiary have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s 7,840,427 patent covering shared‑transport routing. The petition relies on the Olmi UK patent application as both anticipatory and obvious prior art for the asserted claims.

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00308

Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Carma Technology’s ridesharing patent (US 11,017,668) on the basis that its claims are obvious over several prior‑art references. The petition lists two grounds covering all 20 claims and requests institution of the review.

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00306

Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00309

Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 12, 2026

Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.

· IPR2026-00307

Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.

ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd

Delhi High Court · 92988078

Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000038

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.

Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 669 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent with effect for France and Germany, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000037

A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000036

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH

Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was unfounded.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000035

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.

Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000034

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH

Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against three Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669, which relates to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent for France and Germany, dismissed the Claimant's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000033

BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH

BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 743 812 concerning dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000032

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH

Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that the application for production of source code evidence was unjustified.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000031

Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.

Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was speculative and unsupported.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000030

BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH

BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 743 812, which concerns the dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

patent pending · Mar 11, 2026

Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 157923008

Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notices and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.

patent dismissed · Mar 11, 2026

Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 130342949

Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.

patent pending · Mar 11, 2026

Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 186375170

Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notice and directed Respondent No. 1 to file a reply within four weeks.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 10, 2026

Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000039

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.

patent · Mar 10, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.

· IPR2026-00296

Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.

patent plaintiff favorable · Mar 10, 2026

Saurabh Arora v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs

Bombay High Court · 3355208

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents which dismissed a post-grant opposition filed against Patent No. IN 283059. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned, failing to assess the technical merits of the prior art (D1) cited under Section 25(2)(c).

patent LITIGATION · Mar 9, 2026

Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000040

Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 9, 2026

Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.Controller of Patent and Designs

Bombay High Court · 63994794

Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke challenged the refusal of his patent application (No. 879/MUM/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, which was upheld in a prior appeal. The present Commercial Appeal sought to challenge this order further under Section 13 of the CCA, but the Court found that the statutory provisions did not permit such an appeal.

patent pending · Mar 9, 2026

Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents

Delhi High Court - Orders · 168404360

Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.

patent defendant favorable · Mar 9, 2026

Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 144556936

Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000047

Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited

This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.

Milan (IT) Local Division · UPC-000046

KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.

The defendant, PR Medical s.r.l., an Italian company, raised a preliminary objection requesting that the language of proceedings be changed from English to Italian, arguing that Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) UPCA required Italian as the language since it is based in Italy and the alleged infringement occurred there. The Milan Local Division rejected the objection, holding that the two cumulative conditions of Rule 14.2(b) RoP were not both satisfied because the claimant had alleged and shown infringement in other Contracting Member States (notably Germany and Spain), meaning the action could have been brought before other local divisions.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000045

Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH

This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000044

Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB

Dyson, proprietor of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance (the Dyson Airwrap), sought provisional measures against Dreame entities for alleged infringement by their hair dryer products. The Hamburg Local Division granted an injunction covering the Old Dreame Products but not the New Dreame Products. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dreame's appeal, allowed Dyson's appeal, and extended the provisional measures to the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, while staying proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions.