IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 34 · 1,011 total
State v.Amrit Lal @ Raja & Ankit Jain
The Delhi District Court acquitted accused Amrit Lal @ Raja and Ankit Jain of charges under Section 63 of the Copyrights Act and Section 104 of the Trademarks Act, arising from FIR No. 861/2014, PS Sarai Rohilla. The prosecution alleged that the accused were dealing in counterfeit goods bearing false trademarks/trade descriptions of Mico/Bosch/Kirlosker products. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences, as the most crucial witnesses—the complainant Jitender Kumar and Gulfaraz Makani—failed to appear despite being summoned repeatedly over nearly a decade, and the sole testimony of ASI Mam Chand was insufficient for conviction.
TIRU v.Veolia Propreté, Maguin SAS, and Valinea Energie
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted TIRU's request to withdraw its three appeals (PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026, PR-UPC-CoA-80/2026, and PR-UPC-CoA-81/2026) against the decision of the Central Division (Paris section) of 18 March 2026 concerning the validity of EP 3 178 578. The Court ordered a 50% reimbursement of the procedural fees paid by TIRU, amounting to €14,600, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b) RdP, rejecting TIRU's request for full reimbursement.
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-13) under reference UPC_BECF20770B, Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The plaintiffs, four InterDigital entities, withdrew their lawsuit against five Amazon entities with the defendants' consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the refund of 50% of the court fees (€7,500) to the plaintiffs. No cost applications were made or pending.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 and involves a dispute over confidentiality and access to an expert's findings following an inspection and evidence preservation order. The applicant, fiskaly GmbH, sought access to the summary infringement result from the expert Grannemann's detailed description, arguing it contained no trade secrets and that the information asymmetry hindered proper case management. The respondents, SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, opposed the request, arguing that if the underlying inspection order were found unlawful, all evidence obtained would be inadmissible, and therefore no information should be disclosed until the lawfulness of the order was determined.
Havells India Limited & Anr. v.Havai Home Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Havells India Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademarks 'HAVAI' and its device marks, which were found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known 'HAVELLS' trademarks. The court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a mark by altering the letter 'I' to be read as 'L' to create confusion among consumers. The court found all three ingredients of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—were prima facie satisfied, and that balance of convenience and irreparable harm favoured the plaintiffs.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), Versaevel and others (Winston v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.,, Universal Industrial Centre,
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.Keeex SAS (Discretionary Review of UPC_CFI_530/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated June 1, 2026. The underlying dispute concerned Keeex SAS's patent infringement action regarding EP 2 949 070, in which Keeex introduced a claim for provisional damages of €120 million in its Reply brief. The Court of Appeal found that the Local Division's decision was not manifestly
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
Cardo Systems Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, sought a decision by default against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited for infringement of its patent through the sale of Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. The defendants failed to enter an appearance or file any defence despite valid service, and the three-month period under Rule 23 RoP had expired. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that the defendants' deliberate copying of the patent and continued infringement demonstrated awareness, warranting damages under Article 68(1) UPCA.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
Ultratech Cement Ltd And Anr v.Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd
This is an interim order in a commercial IP suit filed by Ultratech Cement Ltd and another against Shaktishali Cement Pvt Ltd for trademark infringement. The plaintiff's witness was examined, affidavit of evidence was recorded, and documentary evidence was marked as exhibits. Given that the suit was undefended, the Court Receiver was directed to destroy the seized goods, and the matter was adjourned for final hearing.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA, v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH,
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-09) under reference UPC_2B046F0581, PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo appeared in dispute with DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Astrazeneca Ab And Ors
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. filed a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking revocation of Patent No. IN235625 (3573/DELNP/2004) held by AstraZeneca AB. The petitioner subsequently filed an application to withdraw the petition in light of a settlement reached between the parties in a related suit, CS(COMM) 323/2020. Respondent No. 1 raised no objection to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the application and disposed of the revocation petition as withdrawn along with all pending applications.
Largan Precision Co. Ltd v.Motorola Mobility India Limited And Ors
This is an order by the Delhi High Court framing issues in a patent infringement suit filed by Largan Precision Co. Ltd against Motorola Mobility India Limited and others concerning Indian Patent No. IN 395095. The defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent on multiple grounds under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court framed eight issues covering infringement, revocation grounds, non-working of the patent, and reliefs, and appointed a Local Commissioner to record evidence with a timeline for completion of trial within one year.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., who had intervened in support of the claimant Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP3079153. The panel denied the review, holding that under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may therefore be the target of a counterclaim, particularly given the principle of equal treatment. The panel further noted that the Court could rely on Rule 305 RoP to add Vectis as a proper party if necessary, and that the substantive objections raised by Dolby and Vectis (lack of standing, no dominant market position, no FRAND declaration) were matters of substance rather than admissibility.
Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_C3ABF2C8EE, Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P appeared in dispute with Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3079153. The panel denied the review sought by the claimant Dolby and the intervener Vectis, confirming that the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible. The panel further held that, in the alternative, Vectis would be added as a proper party, and rejected the request for an extended deadline as moot.
AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland v.TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_4905557A3F, AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland appeared in dispute with TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 v.Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_A4239A3062, Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 appeared in dispute with Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.1) Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed a patent infringement action against four Sercomm entities (based in Taiwan, Germany, France, and Italy) concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei describes as essential for WiFi6. The plaintiff alleges indirect infringement of claims 1–6 and direct infringement of claims 7–12, and licenses the patent both bilaterally and through the SISVEL pool. Following an early interim hearing held by video conference on July 8, 2026, the presiding judge issued a procedural order scheduling a further interim hearing for April 16, 2027 and an oral hearing for May 5, 2027, while reserving the possibility of separating the proceedings against the differently served defendants.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear or file any reply, leading the Court to treat the Plaintiff's contentions as uncontroverted. The Bombay High Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, including the appointment of a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to seize and seal infringing goods at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Bagzone Lifestyles Private Limited v.Shweta Agrawal
Bagzone Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the registered trademark 'LAVIE' and its formative marks including 'LAVIE LUXE' and 'LAVIE SPORT', filed a commercial IP suit against Shweta Agrawal for trademark infringement. Despite being served, the Defendant failed to appear before the Bombay High Court. The Court allowed the Leave Petition and granted ad-interim relief, appointing a Court Receiver and an Additional Special Receiver to search, seize, and seal infringing goods bearing the impugned trademark at the Defendant's premises in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, v.Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-07) under reference UPC_C777A2BE0D, Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, appeared in dispute with Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
John Cockerill Hamon SA v.Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited
The plaintiff, John Cockerill Hamon SA, filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered 'HAMON' trademarks against Hamon Cooling Systems Private Limited, which was using 'HAMON COOLING' and 'HCS HAMON COOLING' as marks and as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the HAMON mark. The Bombay High Court allowed the interim application, holding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, that the defendants were derivative users whose authority to use the marks had expired, and that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favored the plaintiff.
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-07-06) under reference UPC_4F034E8470, Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA appeared in dispute with Polidoro S.p.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Wealth, Inc. v.--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This case concerns an Application pursuant to R. 333 RoP filed by Rematec seeking review of a judge-rapporteur's order that dismissed Rematec's request to have its Application for a cost decision forwarded to the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal held that the Application was admissible but unfounded, confirming that cost decision proceedings must be initiated before the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs arising from appeal proceedings. The Court ruled that the Rules of Procedure do not provide for a specific procedure for cost decisions following Court of Appeal decisions, so the general procedure under R. 150 et seq. RoP applies.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
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.