IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 23 of 50 · 1,474 total
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE, and others
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order sets the value of the proceedings, addresses the admissibility of late-filed exhibits and submissions, orders the parties to focus their arguments for the oral hearing, and schedules the oral hearing for September 1, 2026.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
Black Diamond Motors Pvt Ltd v.Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Black Diamond Track Parts Pvt. Ltd.
This statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenged an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, which allowed the rectification applicant to file an evidence affidavit under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 despite a delay of over three years. The core legal issue was whether the deadline stipulated in Rule 45 for filing an evidence affidavit is mandatory or directory. The Bombay High Court held that the deadline is directory and not mandatory, disagreeing with the Delhi High Court's decisions in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta, and instead endorsing the view expressed by the IPAB in Sahil Kohli. The petition was dismissed and the Impugned Order was upheld, with no costs awarded.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Infringement Action
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
Infringement Action
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
Infringement Action
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Counterclaim for revocation
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application For Costs
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant sought eleven corrections to the earlier ruling, and the court granted eight of them while rejecting three, addressing issues ranging from the representation details in the header to substantive corrections in the reasoning regarding information claims and damages.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Janssen-Cilag International NV, Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Janssen-Cilag NV, Janssen Biologics B.V., Janssen-Cilag B.V., Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Janssen-Cilag SAS, Janssen-Cilag SpA, Janssen-Cilag A/S, Janssen-Cilag Aktiebolag, Janssen-Cilag Farmaceutica Lda., Legend Biotech Corporation, Legend Biotech USA Inc. , Legend Biotech Ireland Limited, Legend Biotech Belgium BV
Counterclaim for revocation
Integrace Private Limited v.Mas Pharmachem And Anr.
Integrace Private Limited sued Mas Pharmachem for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant's mark 'BON K2 FORTE' was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered mark 'BON-K2', both used for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The defendants failed to appear or file a written statement, and the suit proceeded as an undefended suit. The Bombay High Court found the defendants had adopted the impugned mark in a dishonest and mala fide manner to ride upon the plaintiff's goodwill, and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with injunctive relief and costs, though damages were denied for lack of evidence.
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.
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
Infringement Action
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Generic application
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
Counterclaim for revocation
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V.. et.al.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-12) under reference UPC_3F6FC747A3, Irdeto B.V. appeared in dispute with DJI Europe B.V.. et.al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision by the UPC Central Division (Milan) in which INSULET Corporation sought recovery of legal costs from EOFLOW Co. Ltd relating to EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), the appellate proceedings concerning EOFLOW's appeal against a penalty order (UPC_CoA_930/2025), and ancillary remedies. The court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, determining that the objective interest corresponded to the EUR 150,000 penalty at stake, with
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et. al
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur following an interim conference in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The claimant, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, asserts European Patent EP2590626 B1 against fifteen Moderna entities across multiple European jurisdictions. The interim conference was held online on 11 June 2026 to streamline and prepare the proceedings for the upcoming oral hearing, addressing topics suggested by both the Court and the parties.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Generic Order
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.