IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 12 of 19 · 559 total
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed a petition for inter‑partes review of WeCrevention’s DRAM patent (U.S. 12,154,652), seeking to invalidate claims 1‑6 on anticipation and obviousness grounds using multiple prior‑art references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 11 claims of Marlin’s 2011 metal‑gate transistor patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition requests institution and cancellation of the claims.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Court decision.
Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al. v.TVnGo Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of TVnGo’s RE50,399 patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple interactive‑TV references. The petition requests that all challenged claims be found unpatentable.
Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al. v.TVnGo Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of TVnGo’s RE50328 interactive‑TV patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition challenges 19 claims covering overlay graphics and TV‑Internet integration.
Colonel Dhyan Mayadas Retired v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner, a retired military officer, filed a patent application for 'Ballistic Armour Shield' in 2018. Despite the application being deemed 'in order for grant' by the Patent Office (Respondent No. 2), it remained pending with DRDO (Respondent No. 3) for nearly seven years without consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite the process.
Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The court was asked to consider a revocation petition filed by Uflex Limited against The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr. The judge noted uncertainty regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because the renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the extension of limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
A patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 was filed by Avago Technologies against Telefónica Germany before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, and both parties indicated that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the value of the dispute at EUR 1,000,000.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
Fives ECL, SAS sought to recover damages from REEL GmbH for lost profits arising from a patent infringement concerning service modules for electrolytic cells used in aluminum production, related to the 2016 Alba Potline 6 tender in Bahrain. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court applied national (German) law since the factual circumstances were completed before the UPC came into force on June 1, 2023. The court dismissed the claim, finding that Fives ECL could not establish that it would have obtained the contract even absent the patent infringement, as it could not be excluded that the potential profit would have been lost even if REEL had submitted a non-infringing alternative offer.
Valeo Systemes D'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, Robert Bosch Produktie S.A, Robert Bosch DOO, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against an order of the judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris section) that granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, ruling the Paris division lacked jurisdiction and transferring the infringement action to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of proceedings. The Court held that the contested order, which granted the preliminary objection without terminating proceedings against one of the parties, fell under neither the first nor the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, and applied the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP by analogy to declare the appeal admissible. The Court also rejected the Bosch entities' subsidiary request to suspend the first instance proceedings.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP following their successful infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG. Progress opposed the application, arguing that its appeal against the first instance decision triggered an automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA. The Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, stayed the cost proceedings pending the outcome of Progress's appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Oswaal Books appealed a refusal order by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for registration of the mark 'ONE FOR ALL' in Class 16. The lower court held that the phrase was common and descriptive, lacking inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The High Court overturned this decision, finding that the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive and capable of registration.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd v.Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent no. IN541962 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that a related suit was pending before another judge and directed the matter to be listed before that same bench.
Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited v.The Indian Patent Office & Ors.
The Appellant, Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited, filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202011037218. The current order addresses applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the said appeal.
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.