IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 14 of 19 · 559 total
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Jfe Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by the Controller of Patents regarding Indian Patent application number 279/DEL/2015. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file written submissions.
Energeo Works India Private Limited v.Assistant Controller Of Patents
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of Patent Application IN'563 on grounds of lack of inventive step. The application relates to an air-cooling system for pre-cooling ambient air using a mist of water in an HVAC system. The High Court found the impugned order unreasoned and failed to follow the five steps required for determining obviousness, leading to the remand of the matter.
Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.
Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
Google LLC v.Clear Imaging Research LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Clear Imaging’s 32‑claim video‑stabilization patent, alleging obviousness over four prior‑art references and arguing claim‑term constructions. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.
M/S Coral Drugs Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
The appeal challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of a patent application (No. 201717022856) due to lack of inventive step. The appellant sought permission to amend its claims, which were subsequently accepted by the High Court provided they did not broaden the scope of the original claims.
Corning Incorporated v.The Controller Of Patents
Corning Incorporated filed an appeal challenging the rejection of its patent application (No. 202018041017) by The Controller of Patents. The court first condoned a delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and subsequently granted time to both parties for written submissions before listing the matter again.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This is an interim conference order issued by the Milan Local Division in proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025, concerning a patent infringement action by Agathon AG against Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the conditional nature of auxiliary requests, admissibility of certain annexes, the framework for arguments on infringement by equivalence, the value of the actions, and the preparation of the oral hearing scheduled for 24 March 2026.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA and Others
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mold-Tek Packaging Limited
Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd filed a suit for infringement against Neway Industries Pvt. Ltd regarding two patents related to pail closure systems and tamper-proof lids. The dispute reached the Delhi High Court, where appeals were heard concerning the validity of the patents and the status of interim injunctions.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals P Ltd v.Rekin Pharma P Ltd & Anr.
Rexcin Pharmaceuticals filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Rekin Pharma regarding trademark infringement, passing off, and domain name misuse. The core dispute revolved around the similarity between 'REXCIN' (Petitioner) and 'REKIN-SP' (Respondent), particularly concerning pharmaceutical goods in Class 5. The court dismissed the interim injunction application, finding that the Petitioner failed to establish continuous use of REXCIN as a source identifier for Class 5 products.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This appeal concerned the scope of confidentiality protection measures under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in patent infringement proceedings involving FRAND licence determinations. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Vivo's employees and internal support staff should have access to highly confidential information (HCI) including comparable licence agreements, and modified the first instance orders to include internal support staff while maintaining access for named employees subject to restrictions on their involvement in licensing negotiations.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns appeals by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the impugned orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for information contained in three Confidential Licence Agreements, including a five-year licensing bar on the designated natural persons from each party. The Court of Appeal also set a penalty of €1,000,000 per culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division Paris. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that ALD France was a 'straw man' for its parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH), which was already a party in parallel infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings before the Munich Local Division, rendering the action abusive and creating lis pendens. The court confirmed the order rejecting the objection, holding that ALD France's independent business activity made it a separate party from its parent, and that related companies are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because of a parent-subsidiary relationship.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings concerning EP2803191. The claimant did not raise substantive objections, merely referring to its previous arguments in similar cases. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declined to decide at that stage on Merz's request to keep a newly submitted piece of evidence (Exhibit 823) confidential from public access under Article 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP. Merz had uploaded the exhibit under the HC (highly confidential) code without filing a simultaneous application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. The Court held that R. 262.2 RoP requests concern future public access requests, not restrictions on disclosure to the opposing party, and that uploading under HC code without a R. 262A RoP application lacks legal basis.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This case concerns cross-appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality measures ordered in underlying patent infringement proceedings. Sun Patent Trust sued Vivo entities seeking determination of FRAND licence terms for 4G+ technologies and filed applications for protection of confidential information, ultimately requesting an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo's employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of named Vivo employees in the access circle, modified the orders to include internal support staff, and permitted use of confidential information for settlement discussions.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns an appeal by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the lower court's orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for certain Confidential Licence Agreements, with access restricted to external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party, subject to a five-year licensing bar. The Court also imposed a penalty of €1,000,000 for each culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Nordmeccanica S.p.A.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited concerning EP 3067437 (titled 'improved vacuum coating method'). The court found that, since both parties (an Italian defendant and an English claimant) had no connection with German, and English was the predominant language in the relevant technology field, the position of the defendant was decisive in the balancing of interests, warranting a change to the language of the patent.
Decision of the President of the UPC Court of Appeal on Petition for Review of Registrar's Decision (EPLC Rules, Rule 12.1) v.Ex Parte
A European Patent Attorney applied on 29 August 2025 to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the one-year time limit is not discriminatory and that the applicant's qualification could not be deemed an appropriate qualification under Article 48(2) UPCA.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent 11,728,564 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp's ’564 smartphone antenna patent, asserting that all 22 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references covering dual‑side coil layouts, NFC, MST and wireless charging. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑20 under 35 U.S.C. §311.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corp’s U.S. Patent 11,495,875 covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references teaching dual‑sided coil layouts, via connections, and parallel circuitry.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Pogona, LLC
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging all 19 claims of U.S. Patent 11,058,757, alleging that the pneumococcal vaccine claims are anticipated or obvious in view of Porro, Mekalanos, and Siber. The petition argues examiner error and seeks cancellation of the claims.
Beatbot Technology (USA) Co. Ltd. et al. v.Zodiac Pool Systems LLC
Beatbot Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Zodiac Pool Systems' 11,880,207 patent covering autonomous pool cleaning robots. The petition alleges obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of fifteen claims.
Klein Tools, Inc. et al. v.Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
Klein Tools has filed an IPR petition challenging Milwaukee Electric’s 2023 tape‑measure patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over earlier tape‑measure patents. The petition seeks cancellation of all 12 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.AQ Corporation
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
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.