Patent Cases

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

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

Page 7 of 424

patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 832 of 2026 in C.S.(COMM DIV) No. 238 of 2026

Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)

Madras High Court · O.A. No. 876 of 2026 in C.S(COMM DIV) No. 247 of 2026

Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
patent interim order · Aug 28, 2026

Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited

Madras High Court · A. No. 3374 of 2026 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No. 139 of 2024

This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 27, 2026

Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.

The Hague Local Division · UPC_F72114775F

This appeal concerned an order by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Hague Local Division) partially granting a Rule 190 RoP application for production of evidence in infringement proceedings relating to EP 2 791 402, a patent concerning UHMWPE multifilament yarns and ballistic-resistant products. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' appeal, finding no error of law, manifest error of assessment, or failure to apply the requirements of R. 190 RoP, and declared the respondent's conditional cross-appeal inadmissible.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 27, 2026

Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. and Others

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_14404E4AFA

Aesculap AG brought an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against three defendants for direct and indirect infringement of European patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Following the oral hearing on 17 June 2026, the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3 reached a settlement, which they jointly requested the court to confirm under Rule 365.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of its details, and confirmed that each party bears its own costs, while the proceedings continue against defendant 2.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

SprintRay Inc. v.Beklagter zu 1.) und Beklagter zu 2.) (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

· UPC_CFI_2020/2025

This is an order from the Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure. The court rejected the main request to change the language and the subsidiary requests to file submissions and conduct hearings in English, but granted the further subsidiary request allowing the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

SprintRay Inc. v.[Defendants] (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

· UPC_CFI_2020/2025

This order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris concerns a request by the defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure in two related cases involving patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the primary request to change the language to English, as well as the alternative requests to file submissions in English and conduct hearings in English, while granting the further alternative request to allow the defendants to bring their own interpreters at their own cost. The court also granted leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH

UPC Court · UPC_5D8F460B15

This is a Unified Patent Court (UPC) Local Division Mannheim case concerning European Patent EP 1 808 129 B1, in which iCAT Corporation (the Claimant) brought an action against DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH (the Defendants). The Defendants filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that Article 72 UPCA limits the temporal scope of recoverable damages to five years prior to the date the action was brought. The Court, presided over by judge-rapporteur Thomas Adocker, dismissed the preliminary objection as inadmissible because it did not concern the Court's jurisdiction, competence, or the language of the proceedings as required by Rule 19.1 RoP.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S

Court of Appeal · UPC_FFE3DBA12E

This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Section Munich) addressed preliminary issues in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The court ruled that claimant SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), making its reduced court fee payment adequate. The court provisionally set the value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected SYPOX's request to lower the ceiling for recoverable costs, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 26, 2026

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

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_0BAD7D240B

The Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in The Hague allowed the withdrawal of three parallel infringement actions (UPC-CFI-1568/2025, UPC-CFI-1791/2025, and UPC-CFI-1793/2025) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities, after Ericsson informed the Court it had reached a settlement with all defendants. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees paid, reduced from the standard 50% due to the Claimant's procedural conduct in filing several parallel proceedings across different UPC divisions.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH

Paris Local Division · UPC_6AA2FF5514

This case concerned an infringement action filed by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, with Vivo having filed a counterclaim for revocation of EP3407524. The parties reached a settlement and jointly applied to withdraw their respective claims. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and noted that no cost decision or court fees reimbursement application was sought.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)

Court of Appeal · UPC_4F260B6FCD

The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted Cilag GmbH International's request for interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-operated surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The court found that the respondents' distribution of the 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero' products infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court ordered cessation of infringing activities in Germany, imposed penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, and required the respondents to bear the costs of the proceedings.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_6C78EEB4D7

This decision of the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerns the withdrawal of infringement action UPC-CFI-191/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC-CFI-617/2025 between Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation as claimants and multiple Moderna entities as defendants, regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to exceptional circumstances.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.

Court of Appeal · UPC_17BAAF8DB4

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. infringed European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1, owned by Huwais IP Holding LLC and exclusively licensed to Versah LLC. The patent concerns a rotary osteotome (dental tool) with an enhanced flute profile featuring continuously negative rake angles. The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting orders, recall orders, and a finding of liability for damages.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 25, 2026

Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_94C8B0E9EE

This case before the Local Division of The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025) regarding European Patent EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their claims after reaching a settlement, and the court allowed the withdrawal and declared both proceedings closed. However, the court dismissed the parties' requests for reimbursement of court fees, holding that under the amended Rule 370.9(e) RoP applicable to requests filed in 2026, reimbursement is only available before closure of the written phase, and these proceedings had already entered the interim phase.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 25, 2026

Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · W.P.(C)-IPD 35/2026

Jyothy Labs Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking restoration of its opposition (bearing No.1179106) to a trademark application filed by respondent No.2, which had allegedly been allowed while the opposition was still pending. Respondent No.2 accepted notice and raised no objection to the prayer that the opposition be considered before the Registrar decided on registration. The Delhi High Court set aside the registration of respondent No.2's trademark (registration No.5345163) and remanded the matter to the Registrar to reconsider the application after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.

UPC Court · UPC_DE625CE06A

This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed an infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.

UPC Court · UPC_1805E266CE

This is a decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 387 862. The claimant Malikie Innovations Limited had filed a patent infringement action against multiple Xiaomi entities, and the defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties jointly requested permission to withdraw their respective actions and sought proportional reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_4BC579FDE4

This order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request to stay proceedings relating to Ericsson's applications for re-establishment of rights and costs. The Court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of AsusTek's appeal against an earlier decision confirming that AsusTek must reimburse Ericsson EUR 150,000 in costs, finding that deciding the re-establishment and costs applications while the appeal was pending risked inconsistent outcomes and was contrary to procedural economy.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_904A264B4F

This order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon addressed Asustek Computer Inc's application for a confidentiality order regarding information it was required to provide to Ericsson following a 6 May 2026 decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim. The Court dismissed the application, finding it was filed too late and that AsusTek had not justified why it did not raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings. The Court further held that even if admissible, the request to limit the purposes for which Ericsson could use the information fell under substantive law rather than the confidentiality regime.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

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

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_04B669DA13

The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg found HMD Global Oy infringed European Patent EP 2 380 167 (relating to upmixing a downmix audio signal) by manufacturing and marketing devices using Android OS version 9 or later. The court rejected HMD's FRAND defence, holding that while implementers may sometimes demand bilateral licences instead of pool licences, HMD's insistence on bilateral licensing indicated unwillingness to take a licence. The court upheld the patent as granted, rejected HMD's revocation counterclaim, and granted an injunction, recall/destruction orders, information orders, and an interim damages award of EUR 219,000.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 24, 2026

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

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_4CAE6A01E8

The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court found that HMD Global Oy infringed European Patent EP 2 609 590 (an AAC standard-essential patent) by manufacturing and selling Android devices. The court rejected HMD's FRAND defence, holding that its insistence on bilateral licensing rather than accepting the Via AAC pool licence indicated unwillingness to take a licence. The patent was upheld in amended form, and the court granted an injunction, recall and destruction orders, information orders, and an interim damages award of EUR 219,000.
patent · Aug 24, 2026

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Vadodara v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim

Gujarat High Court

The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the common order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D-Bench Ahmedabad, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2012-2013. The Revenue raised multiple substantial questions of law regarding the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80IE, including issues relating to the authenticity of documents for purchase of plant and machinery, splitting/reconstruction of existing business, rejection of books of accounts, and apportionment of various expenses. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the tax appeals, relying on its earlier decision of even date in Tax Appeal Nos. 183 and 184 of 2020 for the same assessee covering Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, where identical issues had been dismissed.
patent · Aug 24, 2026

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-2 v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim

Gujarat High Court

The Revenue filed tax appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's common order dated 16.05.2019 that allowed M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim's claim for deduction under Section 80IE for Assessment Years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Gujarat High Court examined multiple substantial questions of law concerning the genuineness of plant and machinery purchases, whether the assessee firm was constituted by reconstruction of an existing business, and the apportionment of selling, distribution, and R&D expenses. The Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and dismissed both appeals.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

VKC Nuts Private Limited v.Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 207/2025

VKC Nuts Private Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of trademark registration No. 6656555 in Class 29 held by Connedit Business Solutions Private Limited. During proceedings, Respondent No. 1 voluntarily agreed to withdraw the impugned registration, while reserving its right to enforce common law rights through separate legal proceedings. The Court accepted the respondent's statement as binding and disposed of the petition accordingly.
patent interim order · Aug 24, 2026

Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr v.The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 233/2026

The Delhi High Court disposed of interlocutory applications in a rectification petition filed by Gufic Bioscience Ltd & Anr against The Varma Pharmacy Private Limited & Anr. The Court allowed the exemption application and condoned a one-day delay in re-filing the rectification petition. Notice was issued to the Respondents in the main petition seeking cancellation of trademark registration no. 2533114 under Class 05, returnable on 08.12.2026.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 24, 2026

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. v.Saurabh Kumar Agarwal & Anr. (Shyam Singh)

Delhi District Court · CS (Comm.) No. 02/2025

M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit against Saurabh Kumar Agarwal and Shyam Singh seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing or passing off its registered 'GOLDMEDAL' trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court allowed the application, granted a decree of permanent injunction against Defendant No. 1, awarded damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- and legal fees of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and dismissed the suit against Defendant No. 2 as not pressed.
patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 22, 2026

Amar Tulsiyan, Proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances v.Corona Plus Industries Limited

Delhi District Court · TM No. 292/2021

This is an ex-parte judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit filed by Amar Tulsiyan, proprietor of M/s Wizard Fragrances, against Corona Plus Industries Limited. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant issued groundless threats through legal notices and letters regarding the plaintiff's trademarks SHUDH, SHUDH PLUS, and SHUDH PLUS ULTRA LABEL used in relation to supari, pan masala, gutkha, and related goods. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the threats illegal and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks, though no damages were awarded due to lack of evidence.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al. (Pfizer and BioNTech entities)

The Hague Local Division · UPC_7B1CEB43D8

This is a case management order from the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively PBNT) concerning European Patent EP2590626, which relates to Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine products. The order addresses procedural matters arising after the interim conference, including the admission of late-filed exhibits, clarification of the scope of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests to be relied upon at the upcoming oral hearing, and the rejection of certain unsolicited submissions.
patent LITIGATION · Aug 21, 2026

Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_D61ACD6620

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's appeal as inadmissible because its Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1 RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's belated application for re-establishment of rights was also rejected as inadmissible.
1 •••678•••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 →