IP Cases — 2026
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 1 of 10 · 299 total
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and ISO standards related to fasteners and coating methods, which were deemed highly relevant for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the Counter Claim.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the critical issue of service of process against a defendant based in China. Despite formal attempts via Chinese authorities failing, and subsequent email contact being ignored, the Court invoked the principle of effective judicial protection. It ruled that publishing the provisional measures order on the UPC website constituted valid good service, allowing the proceedings to continue without further delay.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of appeals in a dispute between Samsung Bioepis and Alexion Pharmaceuticals regarding EP 3 167 888. The case, which had previously involved provisional measures and cost disputes, was ultimately closed when both parties agreed to withdraw their respective applications for leave to appeal. The court confirmed that consent from the opposing party negates any legitimate interest in the continuation of the proceedings.
Helsinn Healthcare Sa v.Zydus Healthcare Limited
The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in products that infringe their Indian Patent No. 426553, specifically mentioning the brand name NYKRON. The court accepted notice and directed the defendants to file a reply within two weeks.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
Trackon Couriers Private Limited v.B N Srinivas
The Plaintiff, a courier service company, sought an interim injunction against the Defendant for using marks containing 'TRACK-ON' or 'TRACK-ON EXPRESS', which are confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. The court found that the Plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and granted temporary relief.
Sanjeev Kumar Juneja And Another v.Terrace Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
The Punjab-Haryana High Court addressed a revision petition concerning a composite trademark infringement and passing off suit. The court held that while joinder of causes of action is permissible under CPC, the delay in trial due to combining both claims necessitated modification. Consequently, the court granted the defendant time to seek rectification of the plaintiff's registered mark, stayed the infringement claim for three months, and directed that the passing off claim be tried as a separate suit.
Viacyte Inc v.Deputy Controller Of Patents And Designs
Viacyte Inc appealed a rejection order from the Deputy Controller of Patents regarding an invention for a bioreactor used to culture primate pluripotent stem cell-derived cell aggregates. The Controller rejected the application, finding it lacked inventive steps and failed disclosure requirements. The High Court upheld the Controller's decision.
Angelalign Technology Inc. v.Align Technology, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning procedural matters in provisional measures proceedings. Angelalign sought to overturn an earlier order from the Court of First Instance that disregarded its non-infringement arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict requirements for challenging lower court decisions. Practitioners should note that simply stating that evidence was excluded is insufficient; applicants must clearly articulate why the exclusion constitutes a manifest error.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This appeal court decision addresses a procedural matter concerning the release of security deposits in an ongoing patent dispute. Following a settlement agreement between Oerlikon and Bhagat regarding litigation costs, the Court of Appeal granted Oerlikon's request to have the €19,000 deposit released from Bhagat and transferred directly to Oerlikon's account. The ruling underscores the UPC's focus on procedural finality and facilitating amicable resolutions between parties.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the procedural withdrawal of an appeal filed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V against a prior infringement judgment issued by the Local Division in favor of HL Display AB. Due to pending settlement discussions, Black Sheep withdrew its appeal with the consent of HL Display. The court formally permitted this withdrawal and addressed the associated application for reimbursement of court fees under the updated Rules of Procedure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited and Eurep GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision involves a complex dispute over provisional measures concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought to prevent infringement by Dreame International and Eurep, who marketed products through websites. The court found jurisdictional questions regarding the role of EU-based intermediaries (Eurep) in facilitating third-state infringement were too complex for it to resolve alone. Consequently, the Court referred key legal questions to the CJEU while simultaneously issuing provisional measures against certain defendants within the UPC Territory.
Mr. Sumit Vijay & Anr. v.Major League Baseball Properties Inc. & Anr.
The appeal challenged a Single Judge's order that struck off the registered BLUE-JAY trade mark under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court examined whether the removal was justified based on grounds like bad faith and prior user status.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
Largan Precision Co. Ltd filed a suit seeking an interim injunction and disclosure of sales against Motorola Mobility India Limited for alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. TN 395095. The court allowed notice to the defendants and listed the matter for further consideration.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a critical jurisdictional challenge regarding the determination of FRAND license terms in essential patent litigation. Vivo challenged the Paris Local Division's ruling that deferred the FRAND claim to the main proceedings, arguing it lacked UPC competence. The CoA affirmed this deferral, establishing that the FRAND determination is intrinsically linked to and dependent upon the finding of infringement, thus making it a matter for the main court to decide.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy v.Sh. Gautam Tank And Ors.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction against Defendants for infringing the registered Trade Mark 'POSTMAN', used for refined groundnut oil. The Plaintiffs contended that despite a temporary discontinuation, they had not abandoned the mark and it held substantial goodwill. While some issues were decided in favor of the Plaintiffs (including granting an injunction), the court recalled its previous pronouncement and directed the suit to remain pending for further determination on damages.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
In a significant revocation proceeding, the UPC Central Division ruled against Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy, declaring European patent EP 2 671 173 revoked. The patent covered an innovative system for location-aware internet searching while walking. The Court found that the claims lacked inventive step over existing prior art, leading to the complete invalidation of the patent. This decision underscores the rigorous standards applied by the UPC in assessing novelty and inventiveness.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.
Ashish Padia v.Arjan Impex Pvt Ltd
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant alleging infringement across multiple IP rights, including patents, designs, and copyrights related to 'Bonded Fusion Bowl' and various bowl designs. The court framed several issues regarding infringement, patent revocation, and entitlement to damages.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This UPC decision addressed a request for public access to documents from a prior preliminary injunction case involving Boehringer and Zentiva. The Court ruled that while proceedings are generally open to the public, this principle must be balanced against the parties' need to protect sensitive commercial and personal information. Consequently, the Applicant was granted access to the requested pleadings, but only in redacted versions provided by the respondents.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the protection of confidential information in complex SEP litigation involving Ericsson and ASUS. The court meticulously crafted a confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements, balancing the need to protect trade secrets against the parties' fundamental rights to a fair trial. A key innovation was the imposition of a five-year non-negotiation bar on party employees who gain access to these confidential licensing details, providing robust protection while maintaining procedural fairness.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., and associated entities (collectively PBNT)
This procedural order in the GSK v. Pfizer case focused on managing the complexity and volume of submissions within the UPC proceedings. The defendants requested limitations on Auxiliary Requests (ARs) and an extension for their rejoinder, citing excessive length and number of ARs from the claimant. The court acknowledged the high volume but did not limit the ARs; instead, it required GSK to provide a detailed tabular overview of its claims to improve judicial clarity. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with the need for expeditious case management.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l., KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This interim order in the UPC case between Agathon AG and Intercom s.r.l./KNARR Vertriebs GmbH focused heavily on procedural matters ahead of the oral hearing. The Court authorized the admission of technical drawings and samples of both infringing and prior art products, streamlining evidence presentation. Crucially, the parties agreed to allow KNARR to address validity issues during the hearing even without a formal counterclaim for revocation. This order sets clear deadlines for final briefs and prepares the case for joint discussion on infringement and validity.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.