IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 29 of 50 · 1,474 total
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912. After the Defendant filed its Defence together with an Application to amend the patent, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. concerning EP 1903733 on 7 April 2026. Before service on the Defendant, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action on 23 April 2026, stating no party would seek a cost decision and requesting partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (EUR 13,250) to the Claimant.
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.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Application for provisional measures
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Generic Order
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
Application RoP262A
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Infringement Action
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.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group, comprising two Chinese companies, alleging infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. The claimant asserted infringement of three groups of claims concerning multifilament yarn, composite articles, and ballistic-resistant panels against the defendants' 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels' products. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Local Division The Hague under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Adobe's request for discretionary review of an order from the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned KEEEX SAS's infringement action based on patent EP 2 949 070, where Adobe sought dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC member states. The Court of Appeal found the request moot because the same legal question had already been conclusively settled in related proceedings on 13 March 2026.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Infringement Action
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringements of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held that the request was without foundation because the fundamental legal question had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's earlier order of
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd 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.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
Application for provisional measures
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV
Generic Order
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
Application for provisional measures
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Infringement Action
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV regarding European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed the requirements of urgency and necessity for interim relief, particularly focusing on the applicant's burden to demonstrate timely knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the potential infringement. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on April 22, 2026, by a panel including the presiding judge Dr. Thom.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The order, issued by the 2nd Panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, addresses the legal principles regarding urgency and the applicant's duty to act without undue delay in seeking interim relief. The court established guidelines on the burden of proof concerning the applicant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the infringement.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications in a patent infringement dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (claimant) and fifteen Moderna entities (defendants) concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1. The order primarily deals with GSK's Rule 176 application requesting that the Court order the in-person hearing of five party experts (two from GSK and three from Moderna) at the oral proceedings. Moderna opposes the application, arguing that the extensive written expert reports already provide sufficient technical background and that the decision to hear further expert evidence lies at the Court's discretion. The order also addresses preparations for the interim conference scheduled for 11 June 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
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.