IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 16 of 34 · 1,011 total
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Google Ireland Limited et. al.
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 4 184 443 B1. The court found the Claimant's estimated value of the infringement action (2,000,000 euros) manifestly too low given that the alleged infringement concerned the Defendants' mobile or computing devices across all 18 UPC Contracting Member States, and provisionally set the value at 4,000,000 euros. Both parties raised no objections, and the Claimant was ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee of 17,200 euros.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3407524. Following an online case management meeting on 21 May 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur amended the previously scheduled oral hearing dates and ordered the parties' representatives to file a summary submission of up to 50 pages by 21 July 2026. The order does not address the substantive merits of the infringement dispute.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction against Dabur India Limited's product 'COOL KING THANDA TAEL' due to its deceptively similar trade dress to Emami Limited's Navratna Oil. The court found that the trade dress of Dabur's product was likely to mislead consumers and constitute passing off. The appeal by Dabur India Limited was dismissed, and the pending application was also dismissed. The court's findings are prima facie and subject to the final decision in the suit post-trial.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S. concerning European Patent EP 2 184 891 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, and the court issued an order permitting the withdrawal, terminating the proceedings, and directing a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France et al.
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris in proceedings concerning EP 3 689 198, addressing confidentiality and translation exemption requests in connection with Seb's application for costs following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur classified certain redacted information as confidential, restricted access to a limited confidentiality circle, and granted Seb an exemption from translating specified French-language exhibits and case law i
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V. v.***
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court seeking full revocation of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity claim. The defendant accepted the withdrawal, and the court recorded the withdrawal, declared the case closed, and noted the parties' agreement that each would bear its own costs.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7C0E224273, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4344633 against multiple defendants including Sinocare Inc. and various Menarini and Obelis entities. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and seeking to limit jurisdiction to UPC Contracting Member States. The judge-rapporteur deferred the decision on the preliminary objection to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the objection could not lead to complete dismissal and that relevant case law was still evolving.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP), in which the claimant La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. filed an application under Rule 262a of the Rules of Procedure seeking protection of confidential information contained in exhibit MW21. The claimant submitted MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to demonstrate 'concern by the patent' under Article 47.6 UPCA, and requested that access to the unredacted version be restricted to the Court, the Registry, the claimant's representatives, and the defendants' representatives on an 'attorneys' eyes only' basis. The defendants opposed the application, requesting broader access including external Indian counsel and external experts.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7EEE0670ED, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1903733. After the Defendant filed its defence along with an application to amend the patent, and the Claimant filed its reply, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-18) under reference UPC_7A69536D4E, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB appeared in dispute with Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-OU, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ 1, 70839 GERLINGEN, GE v.VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Paris Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-15) under reference UPC_111E0AC1FE, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-OU, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ 1, 70839 GERLINGEN, GE appeared in dispute with VALEO SYSTEMES D'ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in appeal case UPC-CoA-50/2026 concerning patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants (several Robert Bosch entities) appealed an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction and language of procedure in an infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage. The Court of Appeal ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing scheduled for May 26, 2026 would
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
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.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912. After the Defendant filed its Defence together with an Application to amend the patent, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. concerning EP 1903733 on 7 April 2026. Before service on the Defendant, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action on 23 April 2026, stating no party would seek a cost decision and requesting partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (EUR 13,250) to the Claimant.
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.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group, comprising two Chinese companies, alleging infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. The claimant asserted infringement of three groups of claims concerning multifilament yarn, composite articles, and ballistic-resistant panels against the defendants' 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels' products. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Local Division The Hague under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure.
ADOBE INC., San Jose, United States v.KEEEX SAS, Marseille, France, OPENAI OPCO LLC, San Francisco, United States
In this legal proceeding before Paris Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-08) under reference UPC_9D408648AC, ADOBE INC., San Jose, United States appeared in dispute with KEEEX SAS, Marseille, France, OPENAI OPCO LLC, San Francisco, United States concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.