IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 17 of 34 · 1,011 total
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringements of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held that the request was without foundation because the fundamental legal question had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's earlier order of
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd 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.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV regarding European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed the requirements of urgency and necessity for interim relief, particularly focusing on the applicant's burden to demonstrate timely knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the potential infringement. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on April 22, 2026, by a panel including the presiding judge Dr. Thom.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The order, issued by the 2nd Panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, addresses the legal principles regarding urgency and the applicant's duty to act without undue delay in seeking interim relief. The court established guidelines on the burden of proof concerning the applicant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the infringement.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications in a patent infringement dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (claimant) and fifteen Moderna entities (defendants) concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1. The order primarily deals with GSK's Rule 176 application requesting that the Court order the in-person hearing of five party experts (two from GSK and three from Moderna) at the oral proceedings. Moderna opposes the application, arguing that the extensive written expert reports already provide sufficient technical background and that the decision to hear further expert evidence lies at the Court's discretion. The order also addresses preparations for the interim conference scheduled for 11 June 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application on May 4, 2026, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in Stuttgart, in advance of a planned main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on May 6, 2026, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection proceedings and a pending counterclaim for revocation in a separate main action.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 between Hurom Co., Ltd. as Claimant and NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. as Defendant. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendant raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns an order by the Local Chamber Hamburg regarding the determination of coercive measures (Zwangsmittel) under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant, Brita SE, had previously obtained an order on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. prohibiting the marketing of certain water filter devices and requiring disclosure of sales information. The current order addresses the determination of enforcement measures related to that prior injunction.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This case concerns an Application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismiss the infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The Claimant withdrew its Application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026, and the Respondents raised no objections. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that no separate cost decision was needed f
O.V. Lamme v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_ADC6CCA645, O.V. Lamme appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele filed an application for provisional measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of EP 4 676 295 B1 through Melitta's 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags. After the court indicated that the patent's validity appeared compromised by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, ordered Miele to reimburse Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (€7,300) beca
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
In this legal proceeding before Brussels (BE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_46FFEC8858, Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG appeared in dispute with ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑22 of SoftView’s ’729 patent, alleging they are obvious over prior‑art handheld browsers (Zaurus, Pad++) and SVG standards, with claim 21 also relying on SVF. The petition invokes estoppel and issue preclusion based on earlier PTAB findings for related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑37 of SoftView’s ’628 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and arguing the claims are indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
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.