IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 14 of 50 · 1,474 total
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for alleged infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 through Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation of the patent on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the claimed subject matter, including all auxiliary requests, was obvious over the prior art, and dismissed Maxell's infringement action.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This is a procedural decision of the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and two counterclaims for revocation, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The claimant Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology had filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 849 157 against multiple ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the proceedings without requesting a cost decision, and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V. and Others
This procedural order concerns infringement and validity proceedings involving two GSK divisional patents, EP856 and EP941, against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). Following the revocation of EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO and the revocation of EP941 by the EPO opposition division, PBNT applied for a stay of the UPC proceedings. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, postponed its decision on the stay request pending the written grounds of the TBA decision, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd v.Getmohit Cab Private Limited & Ors.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Getmohit Cab Private Limited and others for allegedly using the 'BHARATBENZ' mark and associated device marks/logo on buses. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, and the Delhi High Court recorded the settlement, decreeing the suit in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of the settlement.
Stanley Black and Decker, Inc. v.Stanley Switchgear Products
The defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to amend its written statement to add formal paragraphs relating to additional documents already taken on record, specifically the withdrawal of its trade mark applications in Classes 7 and 9. The court allowed the amendment, observing that the documents served to abide by and perform an undertaking dated 25.01.1975 given by the defendant to the plaintiff's alleged predecessor, and that the amendment was formal in nature. The court directed that allowing the amendment would not prejudice the plaintiff's claims, and re-notified the matter to allow parties to take instructions on the plaintiff's request for further undertakings and withdrawal of opposition.
Rakesh Jain v.Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP
The plaintiff, Rakesh Jain, filed a commercial suit against Ga Se Gaanv Essence LLP alleging trademark infringement and passing off of the registered word mark 'RANI SAHIBA' in respect of basmati rice (Class 30). The defendant was alleged to have dishonestly appropriated the plaintiff's mark while selling rice under its house brand 'GA SE GAANV'. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation, allowed filing of additional documents, registered the plaint, and issued summons, while also granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.
MLCU Pvt. Ltd. (Marachhiya and Laxmi Satyam Udyog Pvt. Ltd.) v.RBI Through Regional Officer
The petitioner, engaged in the manufacture of iron pipes, filed a writ petition seeking conversion of its cash credit accounts into term loans, reduction of interest rates, grant of a 12-month moratorium, and enhancement of credit limits up to Rs. 2 Crores from ICICI Bank. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, holding that ICICI Bank is a private financial entity not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because it is regulated by the RBI. The court further held that the reliefs sought were contractual and commercial in nature and did not involve any public duty or statutory obligation.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. v.Dabur India Ltd.
Jyothy Labs Ltd. filed a commercial IP suit against Dabur India Ltd. for infringement and passing off of its registered trademarks containing the word 'NEEM' as the leading and essential feature, used in relation to toothpaste and dentifrices. The Plaintiff sought interim relief restraining the Defendant from using an impugned label mark that prominently featured 'NEEM'. The Bombay High Court allowed the Interim Application, holding that the Plaintiff had established a prima facie case of both infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry
Bisleri International Private Limited filed a commercial IP suit against Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, alleging that the Defendant was manufacturing and selling packaged drinking water under the deceptively similar mark 'Bislie'. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant had merely deleted the letter 'r' and interchanged the positions of 'e' and 'i' from the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri', along with copying the artistic work, colour scheme, and trade dress. Despite service, the Defendant failed to appear, and the Court allowed the Interim Application and Leave Petition, granting ad-interim relief including injunction and appointment of a Court Receiver.
Bisleri International Private Limited v.Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar (proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry)
Bisleri International Private Limited sued Belaguli Mahalingegowda Kirankumar, proprietor of Kalabyraveshwara Mineral Water Industry, for trademark infringement and copyright piracy arising from the defendant's use of the mark 'Bislie' on packaged drinking water. The Bombay High Court found a strong prima facie case that 'Bislie' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Bisleri,' with the defendant having merely deleted the letter 'r' and rearranged 'e' and 'i.' The court granted ad-interim relief including injunctive relief and appointment of a Court Receiver to search and seize infringing goods.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Hyundai Motor Deutschland GmbH & Others
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of patent infringement proceedings and the related counterclaim for revocation pending a final decision by the European Patent Office in parallel appeal proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 651 429. The patent, relating to a vehicle communication network, had been revoked by the EPO Opposition Division on 9 July 2026, and the Claimant had filed an appeal on 4 August 2026. The court weighed the Claimant's right to a timely hearing against the need to avoid conflicts between UPC infringement measures and the EPO's revocation decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.MSN Laboratories Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against MSN Laboratories Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes and entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, recorded the settlement, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and granted the plaintiffs a refund of the entire court fees.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Dolby and Vectis's applications for a stay and suspensive effect of first-instance proceedings pending their appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in Dolby's infringement action against Acer and declared Acer's FRAND rate-setting counterclaim against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances warranting a stay, concluded the impugned order was not manifestly erroneous, and held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the lower court had not ruled on the admissibility of the identical counterclaim against Dolby.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP. Dolby had brought an infringement action against Acer entities concerning European patent EP 3 079 153, and Vectis (administrator of the patent pool containing the patent) intervened. Acer filed counterclaims for revocation and FRAND rate-setting against both Dolby and Vectis. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay of the first-instance proceedings, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting suspensive effect, and additionally declared Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This is a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 726 883. QIAGEN Sciences had filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, and the defendants had filed counterclaims for revocation. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation were withdrawn by mutual consent. The court allowed the withdrawals, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both the claimant and the defendants.
Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. v.CPYou B.V. and Acer entities
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Dolby and Vectis for suspensive effect (stay) of first instance proceedings pending their appeal. The underlying dispute concerned an order of the Local Division The Hague that admitted Vectis's intervention in support of Dolby and declared Acer's counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The Court of Appeal found no exceptional circumstances justifying a stay and additionally held Dolby's appeal inadmissible because the impugned order contained no ruling adversely affecting Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 223/2026) against Biophore India Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd seeking a permanent injunction to restrain alleged infringement of Indian Patent No. 419280 (IN'280) relating to Asciminib. The Defendant filed an application seeking condonation of a 34-day delay in filing its written statement, which was allowed. The Defendant then voluntarily undertook not to commercially manufacture, sell, or deal in any product containing Asciminib or Asciminib Hydrochloride during the subsistence of IN'280, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970.
Natco Pharma Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs & Ors.
Natco Pharma Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order dated 10.07.2026 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs in Patent Application No. 1014/DELNP/2011. The private respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that challenging the dismissal of a pre-grant opposition is contrary to Sections 25(2) and 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, which provide equally efficacious remedies. The court issued notice limited to the issue of maintainability and listed the matter for 16th September 2026.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed in respect of four Assignment Deeds involving trademarks transferred from various parties to KKR Agro Mills Private Limited and subsequently to the Petitioner. The Madras High Court, without entering into the merits of the claim, directed the Respondent to take up and dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. Following an inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the court to confirm it. The court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered confidentiality of the settlement details, and directed that only a redacted version be entered in the register.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
This is a patent infringement suit (COMS No.3 of 2022) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and another plaintiff allege that Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited infringed their patent rights under Indian Patent No. 243301. The court framed four issues for trial, including questions of infringement, entitlement to permanent injunction and damages, and the validity/revocability of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The matter was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing a date for recording evidence.
Julius Blum GmbH v.Arturo Salice S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438, which relates to a furniture hinge. The plaintiff Julius Blum GmbH alleges infringement of claims 1-5 and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant Arturo Salice S.p.A. has filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the dispute, cost settlement, further written submissions, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Kodak Holding GmbH & Others v.Fujifilm Corporation
This case concerns enforcement proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, where Kodak appealed penalty orders imposed by the Mannheim Local Division for alleged non-compliance with an injunction in patent infringement proceedings brought by Fujifilm. Following the Court of Appeal's earlier decision on the merits setting aside the Mannheim Local Division's decision and finding that Kodak did not infringe the patent due to a private prior use right, the Court of Appeal held that the revocation of the underlying decision had retroactive effect, removing the legal basis for the penalty orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at one million Euro, ordered Fujifilm to bear Kodak's legal costs, and ordered the refund of penalty payments already made.
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.