IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 12 of 50 · 1,474 total
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked EP 2 755 901, a patent owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S concerning a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann's appeals against the first instance decision were rejected, while Omni-Pac's appeal on the counterclaim for revocation succeeded to the extent that the patent was narrowed to a specific modified claim wording. The court found that the broader claim 1 lacked novelty and/or inventive step over prior art, but the modified claims incorporating additional features (label covering the nose and apertures, nose working as a hook) were patentable.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals and partially revoked the patent, limiting it to a specific amended claim wording that incorporated additional features regarding the label covering the nose and apertures and the nose working as a hook.
Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar v.State of Maharashtra And Anr.
This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Sanjay Dattaram Salgaonkar in connection with FIR No. 08 of 2026 registered with the State Excise Department, Kagal, District Kolhapur, for offences under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Applicant contended he was arraigned solely on the basis of the statement of a co-accused, while the prosecution alleged his involvement and that he received money in his account, with the owner of Canus Packaging stating the Applicant managed the company's day-to-day affairs. Since the Applicant cooperated with the investigation and the State confirmed that custodial interrogation was not required, the application was disposed of.
Flu Jeans Private Limited v.Mr. Ajay Verma Trading As M/S Swami Garments & Anr.
This is a petition filed by Flu Jeans Private Limited under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Registration No. 3987460 in Class 25 for the trademark 'FLUCOT'. The Delhi High Court issued notice to the respondents and granted six weeks to Respondent No. 2 to file a reply. Notice was directed to be issued to Respondent No. 1 through all permissible modes, returnable on 27.10.2026.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Electronic Content, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned enforcement proceedings related to EP 2 465 265. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the various Disney defendants. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Zydus Lifesciences Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Zydus Lifesciences Limited concerning Indian Patent No. IN'655 covering the compound 'Dabrafenib'. The defendant, through counsel, undertook before the court not to manufacture for commercial purposes or launch any product containing the patented compound during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The suit was disposed of and decreed in terms of the defendant's undertaking, with the plaintiffs not pressing their monetary reliefs.
SprintRay Inc. v.Defendants (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that under Article 49(6) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, the language of the patent (German) is the mandatory language of proceedings before the Central Division, with no legal basis for a change. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English, conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and permitted simultaneous interpretation at the defendants' own cost only if properly requested in German.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, where the language of the patent is binding. The auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English were also rejected.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, as Article 49(6) UPCA establishes the patent language as the mandatory language of proceedings. The court also rejected the defendants' subsidiary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, while granting leave to appeal on the ground that the question is of fundamental importance.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This order of the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights filed by AorticLab in proceedings involving EP 2 129 425. The underlying dispute arose from Emboline's infringement action and AorticLab's conditional counterclaim for revocation, which the Local Division Munich left undecided after finding no infringement. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, granted re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, and Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is an order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 909 047. The Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's (Yangtze Memory Technologies) access to technical details about the Z01M die to 'attorneys' eyes only' or, alternatively, to a single employee subject to a five-year bar from SDRAM R&D work. The Court rejected these restrictions, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate why the existing Confidentiality Club was insufficient, and granted access to the Claimant's UPC representatives and the four employees it had identified.
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant, Boa Technologies Inc., filed an application under Rule 30(2) RoP seeking permission to lodge subsequent auxiliary requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur provisionally allowed the introduction of the auxiliary requests but stayed the assessment of the application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, granting the Defendants an additional term to respond and requiring the Claimant to address the consequences of a recent Court of Appeal decision.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural matters arising from infringement proceedings involving European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The court rejected as inadmissible NST's appeals against the Munich Local Division's dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production, finding them filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period. The court also rejected as inadmissible NST's new R. 190 RoP applications filed directly with the Court of Appeal, holding that refiling substantially the same evidence production request without new facts would circumvent the appeal mechanism.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC Court of Appeal)
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the decision of the Local Division, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals. The court addressed issues including the temporal applicability of the UPC Agreement, the interpretation of patent claims incorporating manufacturing processes, and the jurisdiction of the UPC over pre-existing facts.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Brussels concerning EP 3 732 827. BARCO sought leave to amend the patent by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) following an adverse outcome at the EPO Opposition Division oral hearing. The Court dismissed BARCO's application, holding that the conditions of R. 263 RoP and R. 30 RoP were not met because the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, BARCO failed to align its UPC and EPO proceedings in a timely manner, and there was no sufficient connection between the proposed changes and YEALINK's specific invalidity arguments.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights. AorticLab had filed a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement, and after the Local Division Munich found no infringement, AorticLab missed the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal rejected Emboline's request for review, granted AorticLab's application for re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's late-filed appeal admissible.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
BARCO sought leave to amend its patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) to align UPC infringement and revocation proceedings with parallel EPO opposition proceedings. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that BARCO could have foreseen the need for amendment from the outset and failed to align its procedural strategies in a timely manner. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural issues arising from NST's appeals against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three related infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The Court held that NST's appeals against the dismissal of its R. 190 RoP evidence production applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed R. 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were also inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC-CoA-365/2025, UPC-CoA-367/2025)
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the Local Division's decision, but the Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals and ordered Knaus Tabbert to bear the court fees and costs of the proceedings. The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 for each of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ruled on procedural issues arising from Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) attempts to obtain evidence production orders under Rule 190 RoP against Qualcomm in infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. The court held that NST's appeals against the first-instance dismissal of its Rule 190 applications were inadmissible because they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that NST's newly filed Rule 190 applications before the Court of Appeal were inadmissible as they sought substantially the same evidence already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, Roborock International B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed PAPST LICENSING's infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device) against three Roborock entities, finding no infringement of claims 1 and 10. The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on the court finding patent infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim. Costs were split 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants, with the defendants bearing the costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerned an appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction. Occlutech had obtained a PI against Lepu for alleged infringement of EP 2 387 951 through its MemoCarna ASD and VSD occlusion devices. The Local Division Hamburg had ordered Lepu to pay EUR 58,800 in forfeited penalties for continuing to offer the attacked embodiments via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform despite the injunction. The Court of Appeal rejected Lepu's appeal, finding that its compliance measures, including geo-blocking and disclaimers, were insufficient to ensure compliance with the PI order.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Gola Sizzlers Private Limited v.M/S GM Foods & Anr.
This is an order of the Delhi High Court in a commercial suit concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The Plaintiff, Gola Sizzlers Private Limited, had been granted an ad interim injunction on 05.08.2026 restraining the Defendants from using the trademarks 'GOLA', 'GOLA SIZZLERS' and 'GOLA RESTAURANTS'. The Defendants' appeal against the injunction was disposed of by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026 without interfering with the injunction, with a direction to the Single Judge to finally dispose of the pending applications. The Court listed the applications for final hearing on 20.08.2026.
State v.Mohd. Nafees
The case involved allegations that the accused, Mohd. Nafees, was found in possession of counterfeit and spurious articles bearing the falsified trademark of 'HP' in violation of Sections 103 and 104 of the Trademark Act. The prosecution failed to establish its case as the complainant, examined as PW-2, did not depose in accordance with the prosecution version and failed to identify the accused or the case property. The Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Indus TMT Industries Ltd. v.M/s. Hoysala TMT
Indus TMT Industries Ltd, a manufacturer of TMT steel bars operating under the brand 'INDUS', sued M/s. Hoysala TMT for infringement of its registered designs (Design Nos. 283226, 338410, 338411, 338412) relating to TMT rods with a honeycomb and X-rib pattern. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was manufacturing and marketing TMT bars under the name 'Hoysala 550 SD TMT Building Heritage' using a design deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered design, amounting to infringement and passing off. The defendant failed to appear despite service and was placed ex parte, leading the Commercial Court at Bengaluru to grant a permanent injunction, order destruction of infringing materials, and direct the defendant to render accounts of profits.
Siddharth Vij v.Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Ors
These Letters Patent Appeals challenged an order dated 05.06.2026 by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, which disposed of petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal/cancellation of the word mark 'PONTA' and a device mark registered in Class-9 in the name of the appellant, Siddharth Vij. The parties arrived at mutual consent terms, with the appellant undertaking to cease manufacturing, exhaust existing stock by 31st March 2027, and refrain from any further use, promotion, or advertising of the marks thereafter. The Court disposed of the appeals in terms of the affidavits, binding the parties to their undertakings, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to comply with paragraph 34 of the impugned order within four weeks.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v.M/s Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited and Anr. (Registrar of Trade Marks)
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark 'DAPLOGIN' (Registration No. 5208898 in Class 05) registered in the name of Razenta Pharmaceuticals Private Limited. The Petitioner claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the coined trademark 'DAPLO' since 2020 for pharmaceutical products used to treat Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. The Delhi High Court held that 'DAPLOGIN' was deceptively similar to the earlier registered trademark 'DAPLO', and allowed the petition, directing cancellation of the registration of 'DAPLOGIN'.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) concerns a Rule 9 application by the GC Aesthetics Defendants objecting to further written pleadings on infringement in Establishment Labs S.A.'s (LABS) Rejoinder, and an alternative Rule 36 application by LABS seeking further pleadings. The court ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections of LABS's Rejoinder (other than paragraphs 611-616) are inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings. LABS was ordered to file a revised Rejoinder, and the Defendants were granted an extended deadline of 7 September 2026 to include further written pleadings in their Rejoinder to the Reply to the Defence of the Application to Amend the Patent.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Brussels concerns EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (the GC Aesthetics group) filed a Rule 9 RoP application seeking to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder, while LABS filed a Rule 36 RoP application requesting further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, ordering LABS to file a revised Rejoinder and granting the Defendants an extended deadline for further submissions.
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.