IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 21 of 34 · 1,011 total
X Corp. v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of the ’744 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Palmon, Walther, and Lu. The petition invokes §§ 102 and 103 and requests institution of review.
Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc v.Brewholik Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application by Brewholik Private Limited to sell existing stock of whiskey bearing the trademark 'OLD FORESTER', which is registered by Brown-Forman Distillery, Inc. The court held that the sale of the seized goods would be violative of the provisions of the Excise Act, 2009 and the Act. The court also noted that the plaintiff had vehemently disputed the quality of the seized goods, alleging them to be counterfeit.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON, Wim Maas and David Mulder, at Taylor Wessing N.V., Parnassus v.increase in financial loss. Once infringement has commenced,, economic damage during the proceedings - without the injured
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
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.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Mechmaark Filtechindia Private Limited v.Asawa Insulation Private Limited & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent no. 532136, which was granted to respondent no. 1 (Asawa Insulation Pvt. Ltd.). The court issued notices and set timelines for filing replies and rejoinders.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑16 of U.S. Patent 8,438,120, which covers hyper‑parameter optimization for machine‑learning classifiers. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness, and asks the PTAB to institute the trial.
Entegris, Inc. v.--
Entegris has filed a PGR petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,347,711, which covers a wafer‑container gas diffusion device. The company alleges anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness over its own prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all 31 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate TopWire's 9,859,202 PoP patent, asserting that all claim limitations are anticipated or obvious over earlier packaging references such as Sun and Chen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and requests cancellation of the challenged claims.
AFR M/s Ele Animations (P) Ltd. v.Satya Swagat Mohanty
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its application to reject a plaint filed by the respondent. The suit involved allegations of copyright infringement concerning artistic works depicting 'Lord Jagannath' and 'Jagan.' The core legal issue was whether the case qualified for exemption from mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, based on the claim of urgent interim relief.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The petitioners, Asustek Computer Inc, filed petitions seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the patent register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications concerning exemptions and procedural matters.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-03-30) under reference UPC_87AB229EEB, The Claimant appeared in dispute with The Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG, Poststraße 10, 84378 Dietersburg, Germ v.Patentanwälte, Rechtsanwälte, LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS
This order addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application following an appeal in a patent infringement and revocation case concerning EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal dismissed Rematec's application to refer its cost decision request to the Court of First Instance, holding that the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction over cost decisions, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance. The Court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a deviation from the general rule.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi,
This revocation action concerns European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 relating to a light-emitting diode. The claimant sought revocation on grounds of added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, later adding a novelty ground. The defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form through multiple auxiliary requests. The Court addressed the consequences of a parallel Court of Appeal decision that had already revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and ruled on the admissibility of subsequent amendments and late-filed evidence.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition to institute an IPR against OptimNet’s U.S. Patent 9,313,101, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over the Mo and Peng references. The petition seeks cancellation of the challenged claims.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
President And Fellows Of Harvard College v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
The Appellant appealed against the Controller General's refusal to grant a patent application concerning SC-β cells. The rejection was based on objections regarding definitiveness, non-patentability, and sufficiency of disclosure. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer due to significant changes in the claims.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics CO., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Google LLC v.--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
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.