IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 25 of 50 · 1,474 total
Pinterest, Inc. v.--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
Okta, Inc., et al. v.--
Okta has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging all sixteen claims of Thales’s ’103 patent covering security policies for eID wallets on mobile devices. The petition relies on multiple obviousness grounds using prior‑art references such as Makhotin, Coulomb, Jones and others.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.,, 94404, USA v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Procedural Order
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Infringement Action
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against multiple defendants including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities concerning EP 2 618 514. The Claimant requested permission to withdraw the infringement action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Local Division Hamburg permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft files an IPR petition challenging ToutVirtual’s 2023 ‘Virtual Systems Management’ patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art virtualization references.
Google LLC v.AccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of AccuSearch’s ’959 patent covering annotated search‑result displays, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oppo
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-02) under reference UPC_65DAC4432F, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oppo concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 2 June 2026, addresses multiple legal questions arising from proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174 validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. The headnotes cover issues of claim construction (particularly regarding numerical values and manufacturing tolerances), private prior use under Article 28 UPCA and German law, front-loaded proceedings under Rule 29(c) RoP, international jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA and Brussels I bis, and the exercise of international jurisdiction including the application of comity principles when patents validated outside the UPC territory are at issue.
LG Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.--
LG Display has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,293,691 covering an OLED display device. The petition asserts indefiniteness, lack of written description, lack of enablement, and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The Board has not yet ruled on the petition.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Appeal RoP220.2
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Revocation Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Infringement Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
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.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order summarizes the interim conference held in two related patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025) brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD Global Oy concerning European patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The judge-rapporteur recorded the parties' agreement on the value of the proceedings, proposed a framework for reimbursable legal costs, and outlined the schedule and structure of the upcoming oral hearing. Key legal issues were identified for each case, covering claim construction, validity, priority, and infringement questions relating to audio coding/upmixing technology.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
This case involves Nokia Technologies Oy as the plaintiff and counter-defendant against a large group of defendants and counter-plaintiffs associated with the Geely automotive group, including Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, Geely Automobile Holdings, multiple Lynk & Co sales entities across Europe, Zeekr entities, and Lotus Cars entities. The proceedings were filed before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court under case numbers UPC_CFI_661/2025 and UPC_CFI_236/2026. The decision was issued on June 1, 2026, though the substantive reasoning and operative ruling are not contained in the provided text excerpt.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris concerning a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by ADOBE against an earlier order of the judge-rapporteur dated 24 April 2026. ADOBE sought to have KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million), introduced in its reply brief of 5 March 2026, declared inadmissible or summarily dismissed. The panel rejected ADOBE's revision request in its entirety, confirming that the provisional damages claim was consistent with the procedural protocol,
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-01) under reference UPC_D574D5017B, Boa Technology Inc. appeared in dispute with Shinkyung Inc. et al. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd v.Ashok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the defendants for infringing the plaintiff's trademarks, copyrights, and artistic works. The court also exempted the plaintiff from pre-litigation mediation and effecting advance service. The defendants were directed to block and suspend the impugned website and preserve domain registration records.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
Infringement Action
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS etc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Nokia Solutions and Network Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and others
Infringement Action
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, sued VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA subsidiary operating an energy recovery unit in Montbéliard) and MAGUIN SAS (manufacturer of the combustion cell) for infringement of European patent EP 3 178 578 B1. After the Central Division of Paris upheld the patent in modified form, the Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive proce
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.