IP Cases — 2026
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 10 · 299 total
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
In this procedural case, Primetals Technologies sought an order compelling Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce extensive technical and commercial documentation related to a plant in Vietnam that Primetals alleged infringed EP 2 624 977. The court ultimately rejected the request, finding that Primetals had not provided sufficient or plausible evidence to substantiate its claims of infringement. This decision underscores the high evidentiary threshold required when seeking discovery orders under UPC rules.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Registrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its subject trade mark, 'PETKIND', citing similarity to a prior application. The Appellant argued that their extensive use and established goodwill with marks containing 'KIND' should qualify them for higher protection. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.
OCV Intellectual Capital Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
The appeal challenged the rejection of a patent application for a high-performance glass fiber composition that achieves S-glass properties at a lower manufacturing cost. The Controller rejected it based on lack of novelty, inventive steps, and non-patentable subject matter. The High Court set aside the rejection order, finding that the Controller failed to consider key arguments regarding technical advancement and synergistic effect.
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures related to a CGM patent. The court confirmed its jurisdiction based on the likelihood of damage arising from products intended for UPC Member States. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the Appellants were ordered to pay €200,000 in interim costs to the Respondent. This case reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the UPC when infringing goods are marketed within the territory.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Sware Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The dispute arose from an injunction decree concerning the unauthorized use and fabrication of machines designed for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders (Anondita Healthcare) sought to maintain attachment of a second machine during execution proceedings, alleging violation of their design rights. The High Court ruled that the executing court cannot undertake fresh substantive inquiry into IP infringement, setting aside the order maintaining the attachment.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendant to introduce subsequent, limiting auxiliary claims into a revocation action concerning a medical device patent (EP4185356). The Court emphasized its commitment to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of UPC proceedings. Despite arguing that the new amendments were merely responsive to the claimant's objections, the Court rejected them, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements for amending patents during litigation.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS v.Amgen N.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal in a pharmaceutical infringement case (Sanofi/Regeneron v. Amgen). Although the parties successfully withdrew the proceedings, citing an agreement and consent from all parties, the court strictly ruled on the financial aspects. The request for reimbursement of court fees was dismissed because the withdrawal occurred after the written procedure had been closed, demonstrating the Court's adherence to procedural timelines.
Symrise Ag v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Symrise Ag filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (No. 202117041016) for 'An Antimicrobial Mixture', holding that it was not patentable under specific sections of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court issued notice and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The respondent authorities adopted a narrow interpretation, arguing that GUIs are mere software and not registrable articles. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the existing legal definitions must be interpreted expansively to recognize GUIs as industrial designs.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC v.Viatris Santé
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for maintaining confidentiality in proceedings. The court ruled that merely requesting confidentiality under R. 262.2 RoP is insufficient to restrict disclosure by opposing parties; a formal application under R. 262A RoP must be made simultaneously with lodging confidential evidence. This ruling emphasizes that unrestricted access is the default, and procedural compliance is mandatory for any restriction.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This UPC decision involved a dual action: an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1. Despite the complexity of the technology—which relates to advanced location estimation using positioning-assisting signals—both the infringement claim and the revocation counterclaim were ultimately dismissed by the Düsseldorf Local Division. The ruling provided important procedural guidance, emphasizing that registration status is prioritized in certain UPC proceedings, while also clarifying the requirements for establishing direct infringement.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision concerns a cost assessment application arising from an appeal regarding service of process in a patent dispute. The court addressed complex procedural issues, specifically concerning the required representation by legal counsel and the limits on reimbursable costs for purely procedural sub-issues. While the underlying infringement case is not decided here, this ruling provides important guidance on how parties must manage their litigation expenses within the UPC framework.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of service of process in a UPC provisional measures case involving parties across different jurisdictions, specifically China. The Court found that traditional methods of serving Defendant 2 were ineffective and unduly delayed. By invoking the principle of effective judicial protection, the Düsseldorf Local Division declared that publishing the preliminary injunction on the UPC website constituted valid good service. This ruling provides significant guidance for practitioners dealing with cross-border litigation where formal service is impractical.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Saisun Pharma Pvt Ltd filed a petition before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner submitted that a third-party post grant opposition had led to the revocation of the patent held by the respondents under Section 25(2) read with Section 25(4) of the Patent Act, 1970. Consequently, the court dismissed the present petition as infructuous.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; ROBERT BOSCH S.A; ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A; ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD; BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE appealed a decision from the UPC Central Division (Paris) concerning an infringement action against various Robert Bosch entities regarding patent EP 2671766. The appeal challenges the jurisdiction and procedural language set by the initial division. This Order of Procedure confirms that the Court of Appeal will first assess the admissibility of VALEO's appeal before examining its merits, a standard procedure for managing complex UPC litigation. This case highlights the importance of strict adherence to appellate procedures within the Unified Patent Court framework.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents and prior arts related to various patents. The Court allowed the application, noting that despite insufficient reasons provided initially, the documents were public domain and highly relevant to the issues in dispute.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Jfe Steel Corporation challenged an order from The Controller of Patents & Designs that refused its patent application (No. 115/MUMNP/2015). The petitioner argued that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance with Section 10(4) without examining novelty or inventive step. The High Court agreed, finding the rejection legally flawed.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appellant, M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited, filed an affidavit seeking leave from the Delhi High Court to amend its claims in a patent application. The company asserted that the amendments were lawful, bona fide, and did not broaden the original disclosure, but merely provided clarification.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA
Guardant Health sought provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding the alleged infringement of four liquid biopsy patents by their MSK-DDM test. The UPC Court rejected the application for provisional measures, citing insufficient demonstration of infringement and procedural issues such as unreasonable delay and improper use of 'added matter.' Crucially, the court also issued an interim costs award, ordering Guardant Health to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
Nagravision Sàrl v.Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Pinterest and Nagravision. The Court granted the request to change the language from German to English, aligning it with the language of the patent grant and the common working language of the multinational Defendants. This ruling emphasizes that operational efficiency and internal coordination needs of large corporate defendants can override the local language preference of a claimant in UPC proceedings.
Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar Of Trademarks Govt. Of India
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted an interim measure in the trademark opposition case filed by Curewin Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. against the Registrar of Trademarks, Government of India. The court directed that no further proceedings related to the specific publication date (11.08.2025) shall be taken until the next hearing date. This temporary stay provides crucial breathing room for the petitioner while procedural requirements are met.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a defendant's attempt to introduce late-filed auxiliary amendments (requests 2A to 13A) into an ongoing revocation action. The claimant argued these requests violated Rule 30.2 RoP by being introduced without proper procedure. The Court ultimately rejected the request, emphasizing that while proportionality is considered, the preclusive nature of the rules against 'little steps' amendments must be respected.
Saint Gobain Tm Kk v.Assistant Controller Opf Patents And Designs
Saint Gobain Tm Kk filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court challenging an order issued by the Assistant Comptroller of Patents and Designs regarding patent application no. 201717018424. The court accepted notice and granted time for the respondent to file written submissions, listing the case for further hearing.
Trutech Machinery v.Controller of Patents & Anr.
Trutech Machinery challenged the Assistant Controller's order allowing a patent application for an improved round corner cutting machine. The Petitioner raised objections under Section 25, including anticipation and lack of inventive step. The Court found no legal error in the summary inquiry conducted by the Controller and directed the Petitioner to seek revocation under Section 64.
Jesal Vimal Jetha v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the Controller's refusal of a patent application for a customizable comforter system, citing failure to meet objections under Section 2(1)(ja). The appellant argued that the decision was mechanical and violated natural justice due to procedural irregularities in handling prior art documents. The High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the grant of its patent application, arguing that it was prevented from filing a necessary divisional application due to the timing of the grant. The petitioner claimed diligent efforts and intent to file the division before the grant. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional application after the grant date.
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.