Patent Cases

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

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that an appeal filed without the required electronic signature under Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure is not a valid filing, and a subsequently signed appeal submitted after the two-month deadline under Rule 224.1 cannot cure the defect. Windhager's appeal against the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 was therefore rejected as inadmissible, along with its belated applications for restoration of rights and additional filing time.

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_CECB999CA8

Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The Japanese plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., requested simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for the oral hearing and permission for Japanese representatives to participate via video conference. The court allowed the plaintiff to hire interpreters at its own cost using the existing courtroom equipment, but declined to order court-funded interpretation, finding that the plaintiff was not disproportionately burdened by the German language of proceedings.

Court of Appeal · UPC_581A9153E4

Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.

Paris Local Division · UPC_5C0F29DDBD

SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures related to European patent EP 3 689 198, owned by SharkNinja. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance decision that had dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures regarding EP 3 689 198, finding that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed by SEB's Cookeo Infinity cooking devices. The court ordered SEB to cease infringing activities in France and Germany, imposed penalty payments for non-compliance, and required SEB to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_BC71A74291

Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH

This order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the release of an expert's detailed description (ausführliche Beschreibung) prepared during an inspection and preservation of evidence proceeding under Articles 58 and 60 of the UPCA, and the protection of confidential information. The applicant Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, sought disclosure of the detailed description, while respondent SYPOX GmbH sought extensive redactions. The court ordered partial redaction of the detailed description, restricted disclosure to specific named natural persons on Topsoe's side, and rejected SYPOX's request for an Attorney-Eyes-Only restriction.

patent interim order · Aug 21, 2026

Mold-Tek Packaging Limited v.Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 944/2024

This is a patent infringement suit filed by Mold-Tek Packaging Limited against Pronton Plast Pack Pvt. Ltd. before the Delhi High Court, concerning alleged infringement of suit patents bearing Nos. 401417 and 298724. The Defendant has raised a counter-claim seeking revocation of the patents and alleged suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff. The court, with the consent of the parties, settled the issues for trial and directed the filing of witness lists and evidence affidavits, listing the matter before the Joint Registrar on 30.09.2026.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 20, 2026

Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_2C85BB5F7D

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 645 903. The applicant, Valeo Electrification, filed a request under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The respondent, SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, challenged the request, arguing certain information was publicly known. The court found the request admissible and substantively justified, establishing a confidentiality club limited to four named individuals from the respondent's side.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai

Madras High Court · C.M.P.No.20095 of 2026 (with CMA(PT) SR No.123355 of 2026)

Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.

Madras High Court · C.M.P. No. 18461 of 2026 in CMA(PT) SR No. 85273 of 2026

Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 20, 2026

Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar) v.Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi High Court · FAO(OS) (COMM) 167/2026

This appeal challenged an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in a trademark dispute between two nutraceutical companies. The Respondent, owner of the registered trademark 'NUREWIRE', obtained the injunction against the Appellants' use of the mark 'RewireX', but had suppressed material facts including a prior cease-and-desist notice and trademark objection. The Division Bench held that the Respondent's suppression of material facts disentitled it to equitable relief, vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, and imposed costs of Rs. 2,00,000 on the Respondent.

patent · Aug 19, 2026

Bhavesh Suresh Kataria v.Kataria Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd.

Bombay High Court

This case involves a trademark dispute between Bhavesh Suresh Kataria, proprietor of 'Kataria Jewellery Insurance Consultancy', and Kataria Insurance Brokers Private Limited, both operating in the insurance sector. The Plaintiff had obtained an expansive interim injunction from a Single Judge restraining the Defendant from using the mark 'KATARIA' in any form. After the Defendant's appeal to the Division Bench set aside this order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter directing the Defendant to seek vacation before the Single Bench. The Bombay High Court varied the interim order, allowing the Defendant to retain its corporate name but prohibiting it from acting as a market intermediary in gems and jewellery insurance, and imposing conditions on its domain name and website usage.

Paris Local Division · UPC_B593FA4F21

Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy

Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to digital audio signal decoding, sued HMD Global Oy before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement, alleging that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets implementing the USAC standard infringed the patent. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, which it made conditional upon a finding of infringement. The Court examined infringement first and concluded that Orange failed to prove infringement because the USAC decoder's transition mechanism relies on the FAC (Forward Aliasing Cancellation) tool, which transmits additional corrective information inconsistent with the patent's teaching of avoiding such additional data transmission.

Court of Appeal · UPC_BBE3EEE261

LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH

The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan issued a final decision in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1, owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH, relating to a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court held that the plaintiff LS9 GmbH, a legal person whose business purpose was seminars and publications, had standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, and that the action was not an abuse of process despite allegations of being a shell company. The court found the subject matter differed from a parallel revocation counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division, and ultimately dismissed the revocation action insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of the defendant's auxiliary request 1.

Court of Appeal · UPC_30A185A3E7

Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel

This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of certain claims through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals, partially revoked the patent by limiting it to a specific restricted claim wording, and ordered Hartmann to bear the majority of the costs.

Court of Appeal · UPC_53FD9175FD

Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked EP 2 755 901, a patent owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S concerning a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann's appeals against the first instance decision were rejected, while Omni-Pac's appeal on the counterclaim for revocation succeeded to the extent that the patent was narrowed to a specific modified claim wording. The court found that the broader claim 1 lacked novelty and/or inventive step over prior art, but the modified claims incorporating additional features (label covering the nose and apertures, nose working as a hook) were patentable.

Court of Appeal · UPC_2C7A42A9CE

Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel

This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals and partially revoked the patent, limiting it to a specific amended claim wording that incorporated additional features regarding the label covering the nose and apertures and the nose working as a hook.

patent interim order · Aug 19, 2026

Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.

Delhi High Court - Orders · C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 227/2026

This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.

patent LITIGATION · Aug 18, 2026

InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Electronic Content, Inc. et al.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_BFAF05DEEB

This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned enforcement proceedings related to EP 2 465 265. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the various Disney defendants. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.

patent plaintiff favorable · Aug 18, 2026

Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited

Delhi High Court - Orders · CS(COMM) 898/2026

Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.

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

· UPC_CFI_2020/2025

The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that under Article 49(6) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, the language of the patent (German) is the mandatory language of proceedings before the Central Division, with no legal basis for a change. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English, conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and permitted simultaneous interpretation at the defendants' own cost only if properly requested in German.

SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

· UPC_CFI_2020/2025

The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, where the language of the patent is binding. The auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English were also rejected.

Paris Division · UPC_17D8665002

SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)

The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, as Article 49(6) UPCA establishes the patent language as the mandatory language of proceedings. The court also rejected the defendants' subsidiary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, while granting leave to appeal on the ground that the question is of fundamental importance.

Court of Appeal · UPC_C175E828A9

AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.

This order of the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights filed by AorticLab in proceedings involving EP 2 129 425. The underlying dispute arose from Emboline's infringement action and AorticLab's conditional counterclaim for revocation, which the Local Division Munich left undecided after finding no infringement. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, granted re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_7A4EDE5733

Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, and Micron Semiconductor France SAS

This is an order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 909 047. The Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's (Yangtze Memory Technologies) access to technical details about the Z01M die to 'attorneys' eyes only' or, alternatively, to a single employee subject to a five-year bar from SDRAM R&D work. The Court rejected these restrictions, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate why the existing Confidentiality Club was insufficient, and granted access to the Claimant's UPC representatives and the four employees it had identified.

Düsseldorf - Local Division · UPC_BD8F91F32A

Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.

This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant, Boa Technologies Inc., filed an application under Rule 30(2) RoP seeking permission to lodge subsequent auxiliary requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur provisionally allowed the introduction of the auxiliary requests but stayed the assessment of the application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, granting the Defendants an additional term to respond and requiring the Claimant to address the consequences of a recent Court of Appeal decision.

Munich Local Division · UPC_8BCD6439BC

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

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural matters arising from infringement proceedings involving European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The court rejected as inadmissible NST's appeals against the Munich Local Division's dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production, finding them filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period. The court also rejected as inadmissible NST's new R. 190 RoP applications filed directly with the Court of Appeal, holding that refiling substantially the same evidence production request without new facts would circumvent the appeal mechanism.

Court of Appeal · UPC_CE60EF8F7A

Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC Court of Appeal)

This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the decision of the Local Division, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals. The court addressed issues including the temporal applicability of the UPC Agreement, the interpretation of patent claims incorporating manufacturing processes, and the jurisdiction of the UPC over pre-existing facts.

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_2FC3797DCF

BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV

This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Brussels concerning EP 3 732 827. BARCO sought leave to amend the patent by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) following an adverse outcome at the EPO Opposition Division oral hearing. The Court dismissed BARCO's application, holding that the conditions of R. 263 RoP and R. 30 RoP were not met because the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, BARCO failed to align its UPC and EPO proceedings in a timely manner, and there was no sufficient connection between the proposed changes and YEALINK's specific invalidity arguments.

Court of Appeal · UPC_7CC48A5242

AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.

This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights. AorticLab had filed a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement, and after the Local Division Munich found no infringement, AorticLab missed the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal rejected Emboline's request for review, granted AorticLab's application for re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's late-filed appeal admissible.