IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 10 of 50 · 1,474 total
SprintRay Inc. v.Beklagter zu 1.) und Beklagter zu 2.) (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
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.
SprintRay Inc. v.[Defendants] (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
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.
iCAT Corporation v.DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. and Dentsply Sirona Deutschland GmbH
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.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
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.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
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.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
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.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
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.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc. and Others
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.
Ramesh Chand v.T.T.Industries
This is a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 465/2018) before the Delhi High Court where the defendant, T.T.Industries, filed I.A. 5608/2026 seeking permission under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC read with Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 to place additional documents on record. The defendant sought to introduce an abstract from the Trade Marks Journal recognizing its 'TT' trademark as a 'well-known' mark, along with a certified copy of a 2004 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The plaintiff objected on the ground of delay, noting that proceedings had been pending since 2002 and the matter was at the stage of defendant's witness examination, and sought time to cite legal precedents. The court re-notified the matter for further consideration before the Joint Registrar and the court on future dates.
Kunal Chintamani Kelkar v.Kanika Sood & Anr.
The Petitioner, a professional photographer and equal designated partner in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) with Respondent No.1, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking urgent interim measures of protection. The disputes concerned alleged unauthorized use of the brand 'The Autofocus' (conceived by the Petitioner), control over digital assets and social media accounts, denial of access to the LLP's premises, and unilateral transfer of approximately Rs.53.26 lakhs from the LLP's bank account to Respondent No.1's personal account. The Delhi High Court, upon prima facie review of the LLP Agreement, found that while Clause 13 permitted independent business activity subject to prior intimation, Clause 14 expressly prohibited a designated partner from undertaking any business directly competing with the LLP's objectives. The Court issued notice to the Respondents and granted limited interim relief restraining Respondent No.1 from transferring or alienating the LLP's assets, digital data, or retaining exclusive control over the LLP's digital accounts.
M/S RPCI Private Limited And Another v.Petals IVF And Women Care Centre LLP And Another
This arbitration application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by M/S RPCI Private Limited seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from an LLP agreement with Petals IVF and Women Care Centre LLP. The applicant claimed Rs. 1,63,07,000/- along with 18% interest, while the opposite party had filed a suit before the Delhi High Court under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Allahabad High Court, applying the principle of 'when in doubt, do refer' from Vidya Drolia, held that an arbitration clause existed between the parties and appointed Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal as the sole arbitrator.
State v.Parvinder Singh
The State prosecuted Parvinder Singh for offences under Section 63 of the Copyright Act and Section 104 of the Trademark Act, alleging that on 12.05.2016 he was found in possession of counterfeit products bearing the falsified trademark of M/s Harish Industrial Corporation. The prosecution's case collapsed because the case property was destroyed in a fire at the malkhana of PS Kashmere Gate, making it impossible to establish the identity of the seized goods. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
State v.Rakesh Kohli
The State prosecuted Rakesh Kohli, Bhaga Ram, Vipin Kumar, and Deepak Kumar under Section 104 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for allegedly manufacturing, stocking, and selling counterfeit automobile parts bearing the registered trademarks of Bajaj Auto Company. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the complainant, Sh. Jitender Kumar, and an expert witness, Ratan Pal Singh. The Court acquitted all four accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Jyothy Labs Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
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.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
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.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation et al.
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
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.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
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.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
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.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
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.
Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited v.Demifine Fashion Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner, Indiejewel Fashions Private Limited, filed a petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the registration of the trademark 'DEMIFINE' (Registration No. 6264164 in Class 14) held by the respondents. The court allowed the petitioner's application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking summoning of the complete record of the impugned trademark from the Registrar of Trade Marks. Notice was issued to the respondents, with timelines set for filing replies and rejoinders.
Chittepu Lakshmi Reddy v.Sri Sitarama Educational Society
This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs seeking a direction to the trial court (VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa) for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.46/2021, a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction pending for over five years. The petitioners relied on Judicial Notification No.3/SO/2016 prescribing a 24-month disposal timeline for certain categories of cases. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, declined to fix a rigid time-bound schedule and instead directed the trial court to endeavour for early disposal based on the seniority of pending cases.
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd v.John Does & Ors
HCL Corporation Pvt Ltd filed a commercial suit against John Does and others for infringement of its trademarks and passing off, alleging that unknown persons were fraudulently representing themselves as employees or agents of HCL through deceptive emails, calls, and messages to dupe the public. The Delhi High Court allowed the impleading of proposed Defendant No. 24 based on KYC details furnished by Defendant No. 18/SBI, permitted amendment of the plaint, and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendants No. 20 to 24 from using HCL's trademarks.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Manish Jain & Anr.
Flu Jeans Private Limited filed a petition before the Delhi High Court under sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned trademark 'BIGFLU'. The court disposed of two interlocutory applications—one for exemption and another seeking leave to file additional documents—and issued notice to the respondents. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar on 23rd November 2026 for further proceedings.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr.
This is an interlocutory order in a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 921/2026) filed by Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. against Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The plaintiff sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation, leave to file additional documents, and an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. The court granted the exemption and leave applications, directed registration of the plaint, issued summons, and issued notice on the stay application with directions for filing reply and rejoinder.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Vadodara v.M/s Sun Pharma Sikkim
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.
Geekay Enterprises v.Ganesh Builders & Ors.
Geekay Enterprises (Plaintiff) filed an Interim Application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from creating third-party rights or undertaking construction on a suit property in Village Nahur, Mumbai, in connection with a redevelopment scheme. The Plaintiff claimed rights to balance FSI under an Agreement dated 28 October 1997, after M/s. Ganesh Builders had constructed 'Samata Apartments' on part of the property. The Bombay High Court rejected the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, that the suit was not filed with necessary alacrity given an 11-year delay, and that the Plaintiff could be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v.Vikash Garg Trading As Royal Cable Industries & Ors.
The petitioner, Marc Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under sections 47, 57 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal, cancellation, or expungement of the impugned trademark registration bearing No. 1320709 in Class 09. The matter was received on transfer from the Co-ordinate IPD Bench as connected matters were pending before the court. The court allowed the application for summoning electronic records from the Registrar of Trademarks, granted exemption subject to just exceptions, and issued notice to the respondents with directions to file reply within 30 days.
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.