IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 19 · 559 total
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
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.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
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.
Kas Zainulabdin And Co v.Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons Gm And Sons Private Limited And Anr.
This case involves a suit for infringement and passing off. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed facts regarding their knowledge of the impugned product. However, the court dismissed the application seeking dispensation under Section 12A, finding that the grounds provided by the plaintiff were sufficiently explained and the cause of action was continuing and recurring in nature.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
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.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. & BrainRobotics Inc.
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.
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2590626 held by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA. The defendants (Pfizer and BioNTech entities, collectively 'PBNT') requested the court to limit GSK's auxiliary requests to ten and to extend the deadline for filing their rejoinder. The court dismissed the request to limit auxiliary requests but ordered GSK to provide a tabular overview of its auxiliary requests, and granted a one-week extension for PBNT's rejoinder submissions.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
Landmark Crafts Limited v.Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The appellant sought rectification to cancel a registered device mark (No. 3986970) held by the respondent, alleging irregularities in its grant. The Deputy Registrar had previously cancelled the registration. The appeal before the High Court questioned whether the substitution of marks constituted a substantial alteration under the Trade Marks Act.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
Unified Patent Court decision.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG before the Local Chamber Mannheim for infringement of European Patent EP 2 951 625, which relates to an optical apparatus for combining laser light. The dispute concerned IPG's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers (two-beam lasers with adjustable mode beam capability). The court found infringement, rejected IPG's counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, provisional damages of €115,000, and a declaration of liability for further damages.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Gowling WLG (Applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
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.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
Albaugh, LLC v.BASF SE et al.
Albaugh, LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑6 of BASF’s 2025 glufosinate formulation patent, asserting anticipation by the Long patent and obviousness over Long alone or combined with synthesis references.
Google LLC v.K.Mizra LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 20 claims of K.Mizra's 2012 wireless networking patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Yoon, Andric, and Budampati references.
SAGEMCOM BROADBAND SAS v.Entropic Communications, LLC
Sagemcom Broadband petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Entropic Communications’ ’275 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Zhang and related prior art.
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
IPG Photonics Corporation v.Trumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents on November 7, 2025. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file replies and complete pleadings before listing the matter for final hearing.
Faiveley Transport Tours v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Faiveley Transport Tours filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated November 07, 2025. The appellant seeks to quash that order and obtain a patent grant for application no. 202117042875.
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.