IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 11 of 19 · 559 total
Asian Paints Limited v.Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors.
Asian Paints Limited filed a suit against Smt. Manju Rani Jindal and others alleging infringement and passing off concerning its trade marks (ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN). The dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the mark 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' on paint-related goods like wall putty and cement paints. Given the Defendants' failure to contest the suit, the court decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid with cooperating connection and retaining elements. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France, Viatris Santé
Gowling WLG, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, requested access to the case file of proceedings between Merz and Viatris (UPC_CFI_697/2025) concerning EP2377536 and its SPC. The Paris Local Division granted limited access, restricting disclosure to documents and submissions specifically relating to the 'unreasonable delay' point of law under Rule 211.4 RoP, which was the sole issue decided in the final order of 21 November 2025.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
Provisional procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415. The defendants filed a request under R. 262A of the Rules of Procedure for protection of confidential information, seeking to designate certain information in their pleadings and annexes as trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA. The plaintiff raised objections to the confidentiality designation, arguing the information did not require such protection.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
A procedural order of the Court of First Instance addressing three applications in a patent infringement action concerning EP2590626. The court granted GSK's R.263 application to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE, dismissed Moderna's R.9 application to strike out GSK's allegedly late-filed submissions and evidence, and ordered GSK to submit a tabular overview of its 40 auxiliary requests while rejecting Moderna's request to limit the number of ARs to ten or dismiss them en bloc.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH & Others v.Amgen, Inc.
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Order
SEG Solar, Inc. et al. v.--
SEG Solar and affiliated entities have filed an IPR petition challenging Jinko's 2023 solar‑cell patent, asserting that 18 claims are obvious over multiple Chinese patents and academic papers. The petition lays out detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to prior art and seeks cancellation under § 318(b).
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
Fertin Pharma A/S v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fertin Pharma A/S appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (no. 202017042442). The High Court found that the rejection order was cryptic, lacked clarity of objection, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims based on prior art documents D1-D3.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. and Others (Netgear Deutschland GmbH and Others as Respondents before Court of First Instance)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Huawei's appeals against an order of the Local Chamber Munich granting TP-Link access to certain redacted documents filed in infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321. The court held that TP-Link had a legitimate interest in accessing the documents because Huawei was suing TP-Link for infringement of the same patent, and that Huawei failed to comply with the procedural requirements for claiming confidentiality under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Productie S.A. and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against six entities of the Bosch group concerning European Patent EP 4144599 B1. Five Bosch defendants (later joined by the sixth) filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 challenging the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division and the language of proceedings, arguing that the conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court were not met. The judge-rapporteur joined the two preliminary objections and rejected them, holding that the requirement that the action concern the 'same infringement' refers to the violation of the same patent by all defendants and does not require identity of the products alleged to infringe across all defendants.
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB
Unified Patent Court decision.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
Appeal from the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision invalidating European Patent EP 2 548 648 (relating to a mill for comminuting grinding material) and dismissing the infringement action. The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance, upheld the validity of the patent in its granted form, found direct and indirect infringement by Europe Forestry's 'Europe Grinders'/'Europe Chip Mills' products, and granted remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, information, and damages.
bioMérieux UK Limited and Others v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited v.Vienna IT Solutions Private Limited
Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc appealed regarding the possibility of amending its patent claims. The appellant sought permission to limit the claimed compounds to 52, arguing this would not contravene Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued against the amendment based on previous judicial precedents.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an interim conference held on 11 February 2026 in a patent infringement action brought by Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. The order addresses procedural matters including the late filing of SYR's comments, the withdrawal of SYR's preliminary objection regarding notification, the admissibility of Pirelli's photographic evidence, and arrangements for the contradictory examination of seized tire samples. The court scheduled the oral hearing for 14 April 2026 and set the value of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation at 500,000 Euro each.
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v.Germ Dome Industries LLC
Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness based on multiple prior‑art references that disclose low‑voltage operation and embedded display‑port use.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 10,998,017), asserting that claims 1‑2 are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art DRAM disclosures and that the input/output unit is a §112(f) means‑plus‑function term.
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.