IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 24 of 50 · 1,474 total
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-11) under reference UPC_0805AED25C, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
Infringement Action
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
Infringement Action
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) for an order requiring the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Defendants argued that the Claimant was a newly established litigation vehicle incorporated in Texas in March 2025, that it had no meaningful assets, and that enforcement of a cost award in Florida would be costly and uncertain. The Court addressed whether Florida's statutory requirements for recognizing foreign judgments justified ordering security, and whether the Claimant's asset structure warranted such an order.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a. o.
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
Infringement Action
FERRING B.V. et al v.ACCORD HEALTHCARE B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The order addresses requests by defendants to align procedural deadlines for lodging preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the alignment request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6's service conditions.
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Application for provisional measures
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
Infringement Action
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
Generic Order
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
Infringement Action
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-08) under reference UPC_0C3E23552C, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS appeared in dispute with Amgen Inc. a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
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.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
Infringement Action
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This procedural order concerns an application by Align Technology, Inc. under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Proceedings to disregard late-filed non-infringement arguments raised by the Angelalign defendants in their rejoinder. Align argued that the defendants introduced new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 of Claim 1 for the first time in their rejoinder, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings. The defendants requested dismissal of Align's requests and an opportunity to reply in writing to the disputed paragraphs and exhibits.
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd v.Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd
Dwd Pharmaceuticals Ltd sought an ex parte ad interim injunction against Celsius Healthcare Pvt Ltd for infringement of its ZEST family of trademarks. The court granted the injunction, restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks. The plaintiff had made significant investments in advertising its products under the ZEST trademarks and had generated considerable income. The defendant's use of the CELSIUSDIZEST mark was likely to cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff.
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v.Ms. Rupali Sharma & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed the petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' granted in favour of Ms. Rupali Sharma. The court held that the term 'GLASS SKIN' is generic and descriptive of the goods, and therefore, cannot be monopolized by any party. The respondent had filed a trademark application for the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in Class-03 on a 'proposed to be used basis' and was granted a registration certificate, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr v.Siddharth Vij & Anr
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark 'PONTA' in favor of Siddharth Vij, as it was found to be deceptively similar to the prior registered trademark 'PENTA' of Panasonic Holdings Corporation. The court held that the registration of 'PONTA' was without sufficient cause and would create confusion and deception in the mind of the general public. The Registrar of Trade Marks has been directed to remove the registered mark 'PONTA' from the Register of Trade Marks.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Application for provisional measures
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
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.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of prior court decisions concerning European Patent EP3119235. During an oral hearing in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement that no cost reimbursement would be sought. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
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.