IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 34 · 1,011 total
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, sued VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary operating an energy recovery unit in Montbéliard) and MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the combustion cell) for infringement of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1. After the Central Division of Paris upheld the patent in modified form, the Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive proce
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1, owned by Hybridgenerator ApS, relating to a mobile hybrid generator system for delivering electrical power. The claimant, Hybridgenerator ApS, brought proceedings against HGSystem ApS, InfoTech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen (a former director of Hybridgenerator who is now associated with the defendant companies and is named as the inventor of the patent). The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation, challenging the patent on grounds including sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The headnotes establish that an invention is sufficiently disclosed only if the specification enables the skilled person to perform the invention without undue burden over the full scope of protection.
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action against numerous entities within the Geely corporate group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, Nokia requested, with the consent of the defendants, the admission of the withdrawal of the infringement action. The defendants in turn requested, with the consent of Nokia, the withdrawal of their invalidity counterclaim, with the matter concerning the admission of the withdrawal and the reimbursement of court fees.
M/S. Motherson Through Its Partners V.C. Sehgal, Vidhi Sehgal and Laksh Vaaman Sehgal v.Motherson Industries Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of M/S. Motherson, restraining Motherson Industries Private Limited from using the trademark 'MOTHERSON'. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of the mark would amount to infringement of their registered trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff to file additional documents and granted exemption from pre-institution mediation. The matter is listed for further hearing on October 29, 2026.
Amber Nutrition Private Limited v.Ms. Neetu Choudhary & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Amber Nutrition Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'AMBER KREAM TOFFEE' or any other similar mark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and that irreparable harm would be caused if the injunction was not granted. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing their sales and to provide an account of profits.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr v.Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor Of Aloe Care Arogya Life & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, restraining the defendant from using the mark 'Liv-22' which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant's use of the mark 'Liv-22' was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors
Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited filed a lawsuit against Orziva Healthcare Private Limited & Ors for trademark infringement and passing off. The court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from manufacturing and selling products under the impugned marks ORZIFER-XT, which are deceptively similar to Emcure's trademarks OROFER and OROFER-XT. The court found that Emcure has established a strong reputation and goodwill in its trademarks and that the Defendants' actions are likely to cause irreparable damage to Emcure's goodwill and reputation.
Fortune Marketing Private Limited v.Gujarat Pesticides & Ors.
The Delhi High Court revoked the impugned copyright registration of the artistic work/label/packaging titled ZOOOK in favor of Gujarat Pesticides & Ors. due to procedural flaws. The court found that the grant of copyright registration was procedurally flawed and deserved to be revoked. The original application filed by Respondent No.1 is revived for fresh consideration by Respondent No.2. The court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Mr Pathan Imrankhan Zafarullakhan & Anr v.Microsoft Corporation
The Delhi High Court set aside an arbitral award that directed the transfer of the domain name 'www.exceltotally.in' from the petitioners to Microsoft Corporation. The court found that the arbitral award lacked independent evaluative analysis establishing intentional deception or bad faith. The petitioners had been using the domain name since 2010 for their software solutions and applications facilitating data transfer between Microsoft Excel and Tally accounting software.
Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd And Anr v.Ks Agro Impex And Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favor of Grm Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, restraining Ks Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging that is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade dress. The court found that the defendant's packaging was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm the plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant is allowed to continue selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice using distinct and non-deceptive packaging. The case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in the FMCG sector.
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, against Dyson Technology Limited in connection with allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances, concerning EP3119235. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the w
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-28) under reference UPC_8B29C7AB44, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This order concerns the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1. The plaintiff Brita SE had previously obtained a decision on April 16, 2026, finding indirect infringement by the defendant Wessper Sp. z o.o.'s filter cartridges and ordering the defendant to provide structured information about its infringing products. The present order, issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as Rapporteur, addresses procedural measures under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure to safeguard confidential information during the disclosure process.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V. BYD France SAS BYD Automotive GmbH BYD Mobility GmbH
This procedural order concerns an application for security for costs under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure in a patent infringement action. BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) sued multiple BYD Group entities for infringement of European Patent EP2937706 before the Paris Local Division. BYD sought security for costs in the amount of EUR 400,000, arguing that BMSI is a financially empty shell similar to a non-practicing entity, with no publicly disclosed financial information or liquid assets. BMSI countered by proposing a reduced security amount of EUR 300,000 and a seven-week timeframe for provision.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-27) under reference UPC_44EB647500, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. appeared in dispute with Cybex GmbH et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (applicant) in ***, Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited, *** and *** v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied for access to the case files of three related appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_683/2024, and UPC_CoA_19/2025) concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. had sued Belkin entities for patent infringement and Belkin had counterclaimed for revocation. Anker sought access to the written submissions and annexes, excluding confidential information, citing a parallel infringement action brought against it by Philips before the Local Division Munich. Philips did not oppose access to the technical arguments not subject to confidentiality orders, and Belkin raised no objections.
LS 9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
This is a procedural order (Rule 105 RoP) issued by the Rapporteur of the Central Division (Milan) in a nullity action concerning European Patent No. 2223589. The order records the outcome of a digital interim hearing held on 13 May 2026, addressing the plaintiff's representation, the value in dispute, procedural costs, and the preliminary admissibility of the nullity claim under Articles 47.6 and 73.4 EPGÜ and Rules 361–363 RoP. The court indicated it provisionally considers the action admissible and invited the parties to agree on the value in dispute and cost estimates ahead of the oral hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 778 423, owned by Grundfos Holding A/S, relating to a centrifugal pump unit, particularly a heating circulation pump unit. Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of 8 May 2025 concerning infringement and a counterclaim for invalidity. The Court of Appeal addressed whether submissions concretized on appeal were new, the interpretation of patent claims in light of the prior art, and the relevance of the procedural language for claim construction.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A., Patent Attorney Dr. Antonio Lasca, of Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought an infringement action against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' which covers a tyre with both high on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent for insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step. The Court found that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of EP'207, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, publication orders, and penalty payments against SYR.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.TIANJIN KINGTYRE GROUP CO., LTD
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2519412 for motorcycle tires. After Tianjin Kingtyre failed to enter an appearance within the three-month deadline following service of the statement of claim, Pirelli sought a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The court granted the default decision, finding literal infringement of the patent and ordering injunctive relief, penalties, publication, and cost reimbursement.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled "motorcycles tyre," relating to a motorcycle tyre offering high road and off-road performance. Pirelli alleged that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court found SYR had infringed the patent by offering and placing the infringing tyres on the market in several Contracting Member States, and ordered injunctive relief, publication, penalties, and damages in favor of Pirelli.
- Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.- Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson - Ericsson Holding International B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V. - Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect filed by Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji against an order of The Hague Local Division requiring them to produce UD fabric samples and a company introduction video under Rule 190 RoP. The appellants argued that compliance within the two-week deadline was impossible due to Chinese military-grade export control regulations requiring 1-2 months to obtain permits. The Court extended the compliance deadline to 15 July 2026 while rejecting the appellants' other arguments regarding procedural violations and manifest errors.
Safex Chemicals India Limited v.Safex Seed India Llp & Anr
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Safex Chemicals India Limited, restraining Safex Seed India Llp & Anr from using the trademark 'SAFEX' in relation to agrochemical products. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted and used the trademark 'SAFEX' since 1991 and had established a substantial sales turnover and widespread advertising and promotion of its products under the trademark. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, citing the plaintiff's prima facie case and the balance of convenience in its favor.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
A procedural order issued in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3852468. Following an online case management meeting, the Judge-Rapporteur rescheduled the oral hearing dates previously set in January 2026 and ordered the parties to file consolidated summary submissions to streamline the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
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.