Patent Cases

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

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

Page 7 of 453

patent LITIGATION · Mar 6, 2026

Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB

This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 6, 2026

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000041

This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction obtained by Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame International, Eurep GmbH, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB for alleged infringement of 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 third-state defendant (Dreame International) in relation to Spain and over an EU-based authorized representative (Eurep).

patent LITIGATION · Mar 4, 2026

Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000048

This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.

patent · Mar 4, 2026

Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2026-00331

Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 92 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.

patent · Mar 4, 2026

Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC

· IPR2026-00326

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.

patent · Mar 4, 2026

Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC

· IPR2026-00332

Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 3, 2026

Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH and others v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000050

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.

patent LITIGATION · Mar 3, 2026

Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000049

Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), proprietor of European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2 relating to wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders, sued Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities for infringement of the patent with their NightBalance device. Philips counterclaimed for revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, added matter, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety as obvious over prior art JP H03-49748 A in combination with common general knowledge, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered ABM to pay costs.

patent · Mar 3, 2026

Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.

· PGR2026-00031

Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.

patent · Mar 2, 2026

FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC

· IPR2026-00245

FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.

patent · Mar 2, 2026

Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

· IPR2026-00250

Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.

patent · Feb 28, 2026

Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC

· IPR2026-00276

Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.

patent defendant favorable · Feb 28, 2026

Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 64918310

The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 27, 2026

Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000052

This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European patent EP 3 831 283. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio's revocation action and maintained the patent as granted. On appeal, Sibio requested further exchanges of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP after Abbott's Statement of response referenced six auxiliary requests. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the proceedings from the first instance and did not require refiling on appeal.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 27, 2026

Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others

Mannheim (DE) Local Division · UPC-000051

This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns whether Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) must pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. EP 2 831 787. The court held that although Defendants 2–4 had already paid a single court fee for their joint counterclaim for revocation under Rule 370.7 RoP, Defendant 1's later-filed counterclaim constitutes a separate action requiring its own fee, even though the content is identical.

patent terminated or settled · Feb 27, 2026

Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2026-00279

USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.

patent · Feb 27, 2026

Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2026-00277

USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly filed a motion to stay all deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to file dismissal papers.

patent · Feb 27, 2026

Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2026-00279

Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.

patent · Feb 27, 2026

Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS

· IPR2026-00278

Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.

patent · Feb 27, 2026

Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association

· IPR2026-00277

Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2026

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · 36015233

Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 27, 2026

AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.

Bombay High Court · 154458370

The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 26, 2026

EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-000054

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 26, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-000053

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for file inspection (Akteneinsicht) under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had initially granted file inspection, but Respondent Huawei Technologies sought Panel Review under Rule 333 RoP and requested suspension of the order. The Rapporteur then suspended and modified his original order under Rule 335 RoP, holding that file inspection would only be granted after the final conclusion of the Panel Review proceedings to prevent the review from being rendered moot.

patent · Feb 26, 2026

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.

· IPR2026-00270

Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.

patent plaintiff favorable · Feb 26, 2026

Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs

Delhi High Court - Orders · 115182081

Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.

patent remanded · Feb 26, 2026

T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · 144511627

T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 25, 2026

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-000058

This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) addresses three applications in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP4066856 and EP4226941. The court granted GSK's application under R.263 RoP to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application seeking to strike out late-filed submissions and evidence from GSK's Reply, and ordered GSK to provide a tabular overview of its 51 conditional auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit them to ten or dismiss them en bloc.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 25, 2026

Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000057

Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, and sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' opposition by March 9, 2026, and for the respondents to surrebut by March 23, 2026.

patent LITIGATION · Feb 25, 2026

beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC-000056

beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.

1 •••6 7 8•••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 →