IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 15 of 50 · 1,474 total
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of cross-appeals in a patent dispute involving EP 2 642 632. The Local Chamber Hamburg had previously dismissed the infringement claim 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 terminated the proceedings.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd and Anr
This is an order sheet from the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court in a matter relating to a trade mark dispute. The court, on the prayer of the review applicant, peremptorily extended the time to file a supplementary affidavit till 17th August, 2026, and granted liberty to the respondents to file a rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit by 28th August, 2026. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of September, 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) filed a patent infringement suit against Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising mobile devices incorporating AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies covered by Ericsson's suit patents. During the pendency of the suit, Ericsson and Defendant No. 2 amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 01.12.2025. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, allowed withdrawal of a connected commercial complaint, and granted the plaintiff a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Enviro Ambient Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Enviro Ambient Corporation appealed against the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. IN201917020705 for a 'Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method' by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Patent Controller had rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as non-speaking and unreasoned, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with directions to decide within three months.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, and Others
Bostik, Inc. filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Henkel entities, alleging that Henkel's Loctite® Liofol cold-sealable adhesive products infringed European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court declared the patent invalid in its entirety (including the amended form under auxiliary request AR1) on the ground of added matter, finding that Claim 1 as granted constituted an intermediate generalization beyond the original application disclosure.
Biopsafe ApS v.Kaltek S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for security for costs filed by the defendant Kaltek S.r.l. in patent infringement proceedings brought by Biopsafe ApS before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Kaltek argued that Biopsafe's financial position, characterized by low share capital, microenterprise status, aggressive dividend distribution, and near-zero liquidity, raised a legitimate concern that any costs award would be unrecoverable. The Court dismissed the application, finding that Kaltek had not met its burden of proof, particularly given Biopsafe's recent acquisition by Medcap for approximately EUR 15.38 million and its demonstrated growth in profits and assets.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc. & Samsung Electronics
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2047617. Following an agreement between the parties, the judge-rapporteur confirmed the alignment of deadlines for all defendants to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation by 26 October 2026. The order also confirmed that Dr. Ebersohl would represent Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) in addition to the Samsung defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC
The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé seeking a stay of proceedings and a declination of jurisdiction in favour of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris. The court held that Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation (lis pendens) did not apply because the UPC infringement action and the Paris TJ revocation/non-infringement action did not share the same cause of action. While the cases were 'related' under Article 30, the court declined to stay proceedings because the UPC decision would likely be rendered before the Paris TJ decision, and a stay would unduly delay the UPC proceedings.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order issued by the Judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order sets procedural directions, including the value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), scheduling oral hearings on 9-11 September 2026, and identifying the main legal points relating to claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and interim measures.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the value of the infringement action at 5 million euros and the counterclaim for revocation at 5 million euros, totaling 10 million euros. It also establishes the procedural framework for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 9-11 September 2026, covering claim construction, validity, infringement, FRAND matters, and an interim award.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 410/2020) filed by Astrazeneca AB & Anr against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, based on a joint application recording an amicable settlement between the parties. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement, which formed part of the decree, and directed refund of the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against USV Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a single Judge's order that had set aside the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of Kangaro Industries' request for extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings. V-Guard Industries had applied for registration of the mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16, which Kangaro Industries opposed. The Division Bench held that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory, that no extension of time is provided under the 2017 Rules unlike the 2002 Rules, and consequently the opposition stood deemed abandoned. The appeal was allowed and the single Judge's order was set aside.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG & Telekom Deutschland GmbH
This decision of the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a review application filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the judge-rapporteur on 22 June 2026 in proceedings involving EP 1 955 151. CA challenged the order on the ground that Telekom had only submitted an excerpt (Annex B5) of a larger document in unredacted form, arguing that Rule 262A.3 RoP required disclosure of the entire underlying document. The court rejected the review application, holding that an excerpt can constitute an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3 RoP and that there is no right to access the entire source document.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO Group)
This order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerns a dispute over the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action involving EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo (the defendants collectively) sought to add two former in-house employees to the confidentiality club to access license materials, while KPN objected and requested a licensing bar. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the club beyond the existing members, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf confidentiality regime, and deferred the licensing bar question pending clarification from KPN.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the alignment of service dates and deadlines for filing statements of defence in a patent infringement action brought by Cardo Systems against two defendants, Ziwu and Resosport. The judge-rapporteur had ordered a notional common starting date of 10 June 2026 for all defendants, with statements of defence due by 10 September 2026. Cardo sought review of this order, arguing it granted the defendants a de facto 50-day extension inconsistent with the UPC's objectives of speed and efficiency. The Panel dismissed Cardo's application, finding the order constituted a balanced compromise that provided certainty and orderly management of the proceedings.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning a request for revision under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure. KEEEX SAS, holder of European patent EP2949070, sought partial revision of a June 25, 2026 order that had rejected its request for further patent modification under R.30.2, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim under R.263, and excluded certain sections of its June 5, 2026 brief as late-filed under R.9.2. The panel rejected both KEEEX's and ADOBE's revision requests, finding that the original order correctly applied UPC jurisprudence on subsequent patent modifications and procedural admissibility.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon confirmed a cost settlement between Ericsson and Asustek under Rule 365.1 RoP in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131. Following a merits decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim and dismissing Asustek's counterclaim for revocation, Ericsson requested confirmation of the parties' jointly submitted cost agreement requiring Asustek to pay EUR 150,000. The Court rejected Asustek's arguments that the agreement merely fixed a cost ceiling requiring a separate R. 150 procedure, holding that the substance of the agreement constituted a settlement resolving a potential cost dispute.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland SARL & Anr.
The petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark ULTIME REPAIR registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in Class 03 under registration No. 5918380. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to take the settlement on record and direct removal of the trademark entry. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, took the settlement on record, and directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
Mex Switchgears Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The applicant, Mex Switchgears Private Limited, filed an application to condone a delay of 122 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.801379 to Trademark Application No.1763867 in Class 09. The respondent opposed the application. The Madras High Court, after considering the averments in the affidavit and being satisfied with the reasons stated, allowed the application and condoned the delay.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of three connected revocation petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc against Nokia Technologies Oy, pertaining to Indian Patent Nos. 381056, 320467, and 356246. The petitions were withdrawn by Asustek following the parties' entry into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their pending disputes. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to reinstitute revocation or other legal proceedings in respect of the subject patents if required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a suit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing the patented compound Dabrafenib, allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 275655 (IN'655). The defendant, through its counsel, gave an undertaking to the court not to commercially manufacture or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The court accepted the undertaking, decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, and directed the defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
The Petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026 executed with Respondent No. 1, and to direct Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' (Registration No. 6343131 in Class 03) from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court found the settlement terms to be lawful and allowed the application. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was allowed, and the registration of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' in favour of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled, with Respondent No. 2 directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in cases UPC CFI no. 377/2025 and no. 702/2025, concerning the rectification of a clerical mistake under R. 353 RoP. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties of the Court's intention to correct an error in a prior order issued on 22 July 2026, where the value of the counterclaim for revocation was incorrectly stated as EUR 1,850,000 instead of the correct EUR 1,875,000. Both parties confirmed they had no objection to the proposed rectification, and the order was issued accordingly.
Bystronic Laser AG and Others v.ASTES4 SA
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in a patent infringement action. The defendants (Bystronic group entities and Isochronic AG) sought the change to English, the language in which the patent EP2164678 was granted, while the claimant ASTES4 SA opposed it. The President granted the application, holding that all parties are part of international groups equally capable of litigating in English and that the defendants' position prevails when the balancing of interests is equal.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Parle Products Pvt Ltd v.The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
This Letters Patent Appeal was filed by Parle Products Pvt Ltd challenging the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order dated 29.04.2025 allowing respondent no.2's application for registration of the trademark '20-20' in Class 30. The appellant claimed to be the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the marks '20-20', 'TWENTY-20' and 'T20' and alleged deceptive similarity with respondent no.2's mark. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was guilty of approbation and reprobation since it had obtained its own registrations by asserting its marks were distinct from respondent no.2's mark, and could not now claim deceptive similarity to challenge the latter's registration.
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.