IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 19 of 34 · 1,011 total
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Johnson Paints Co v.Johnson Paints Private Limited
The Patna High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Johnson Paints Co, restraining Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the trademark 'JOHNSON' with prefixes and suffixes or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a better common law right and that the defendant's use of the trademark would lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity and cause deception of the public. The court also directed the learned Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
does not, in principle, relieve the Claimant of the obligati, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, 675 Town Square Blvd., v.XIAOMI Inc., No. 006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle X, XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd, #019, 9th Floor, Building 6,
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_6766E610C8, does not, in principle, relieve the Claimant of the obligati, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, 675 Town Square Blvd., appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., No. 006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle X, XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd, #019, 9th Floor, Building 6, concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Dainese S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of protective motorcycle equipment including the DAir® airbag system, brought an infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l. (a Spanish company) concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364, alleging that the defendants' Tech Air 3 System and Tech Air 10 Race System products infringed the patent. The decision addresses jurisdictional issues under Article 8 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, examining whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments when one defendant is domiciled in Spain and is sued for infringement of the Spanish portion of the same patent.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy applied for an ex parte provisional measure described as an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales. The dispute arises from global SEP litigation between the parties, with infringement actions pending before the Local Chambers Mannheim and Munich, and a parallel rate-setting proceeding initiated by Geely before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Nokia seeks to prevent Geely from obtaining an 'Interim Licence' or equivalent measure in the Chinese proceedings, arguing such relief would interfere with the UPC's jurisdiction over the European patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075.
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India v.Le Shark Apparel Limited
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under Rule 192 against WEPA Nederland B.V in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which relates to tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing the seizure of descriptions, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, The Netherlands. The court applied specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure, including provisions on password-protected drives and cloud-stored documents, and ruled that the Applicant's representatives may not be present during the seizure while Defendant's personnel may be questioned but cannot be compelled to answer under penalty.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-04-17) under reference UPC_5B2F76A36A, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. appeared in dispute with Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin sued Goodyear for infringing European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to a 'Variable surface area tire tread.' Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation. The Paris Local Division of the UPC found the patent lacked novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, and dismissed all of Michelin's infringement claims, ordering Michelin to bear the costs.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and others
Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.
PRNOTH SPA v.XELOM s.r.l.
Prinoth S.p.A., plaintiff in a patent infringement action before the UPC Local Division Milan concerning EP2507436 and EP1995159, sought a 30-day extension under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. Xelom s.r.l. opposed the request. The Judge Rapporteur granted the extension to May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, approximately 150 new validity attacks, and a 360-p
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1, with Brita SE as plaintiff and Wessper Sp. z o.o. as defendant. The decision addressed issues of indirect patent infringement and patent exhaustion in relation to a two-component product and wear parts. The court established that for indirect infringement, the existence of the other component is not required for the objective elements, and that for exhaustion analysis, the technical teaching of combined claims (main claim plus sub-claims) must be examined.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging Whirlpool's 10,512,385 dishwasher patent, asserting that claims 13‑21 are obvious over Bosch, Ochoa, and Schessl references.
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd v.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks And, K.R. Nagendra, K.N. Shobha
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd appealed against the registration of a trademark by Shankar Industries. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shankar Industries was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that Shankar Industries had established use of the mark since 1995-1996 and that the appellant's use did not pre-date theirs. The court also noted that many of the appellant's registrations were limited to the state of West Bengal, while the respondents' registrations were limited to Karnataka.
More Than Water Private Limited v.Nesco Limited
The Delhi High Court denied an ad-interim injunction to More Than Water Private Limited against Nesco Limited, but directed both parties to sell their packaged drinking water products within their respective states. The court found that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for an ad-interim injunction. The plaintiff had claimed that the defendant's mark 'MY WATER BOX' was similar to its own mark 'WATER BOX' and would cause confusion among consumers.
UMICORE N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V., RECAT GmbH
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by the defendants (collectively 'Elemental') in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP4087952 owned by Umicore. The Court classified certain technical information regarding the defendants' process as confidential, but expanded the circle of persons within Umicore permitted to access it, including technical experts, given prior exchange under a wider NDA. The Court further ordered that Umicore's deadlines under Rule 29(a) begin running only upon receipt of the full unredacted Statement of Defence and exhibits.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.1. BYD Company Ltd - 2. BYD Auto Co., Ltd 3. BYD Europe B.V. 4. BYD France SAS 5. BYD Automotive GmbH 6. BYD Mobility GmbH 7. BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order concerns a preliminary objection filed by three BYD Group entities challenging the Paris Local Division's international jurisdiction in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2937706. The defendants domiciled in China and the United Kingdom argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over them, particularly because the Chinese defendants were not alleged to have committed any infringing act within the territory of an EU Member State. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that it has no international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in third countries (non-UPC, non-EU) who are not alleged to have committed infringing acts within EU territory.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-14) under reference UPC_6B42A85967, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oleading B.V. Et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited et al.
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Tricam Industries, LLC v.--
Tricam Industries filed a PGR petition for U.S. Patent 12,359,506, providing a corrected exhibit list that includes prior patents and a related Federal Circuit case.
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.