IP Cases — 2026
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 3 of 10 · 299 total
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS et autres (ROBERT BOSCH GROUP)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the admissibility of an appeal against a preliminary order issued by the Trial Division Judge-Rapporteur. The case, involving Valeo and Robert Bosch concerning EP 2671766, centered on whether the specific type of procedural ruling fell under the scope of appeal defined in the UPC Agreement (AJUB). The Court ultimately ruled that the appeal was admissible, providing important guidance on how parties can challenge non-final, preliminary orders within the UPC framework.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
Wacom Company Limited v.Cirel Systems Private Limited
Wacom Company Limited filed this Civil Petition seeking the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Cirel Systems Private Limited. This evidence is required for pending patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, 1970.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements governing ex parte orders for evidence preservation. Ecovacs sought an inspection order against Roborock, but the Local Division revoked it due to incomplete disclosure by Ecovacs regarding Roborock's direct market activities. The Court of Appeal upheld this revocation, stressing that applicants have a heightened duty under R. 192.3 RoP to disclose all material facts influencing the court’s decision, regardless of whether those facts are later introduced in the main action.
Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v.Stanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited
The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v.Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against Ranvir Kumar Bindeshwari Singh for infringing Patent No. 209816, which covers SITAGLIPTIN. The court ultimately decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding substantial compensatory, exemplary, and costs damages.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Kba Notasys Sa v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr
The appellant, Kba Notasys Sa, challenged an impugned order issued by the Controller General of Patents. The appellant argued that the Controller failed to apply established guidelines for determining inventive step and did not properly assess the invention described in their drawings. The respondent contended that the claimed invention was not patentable as it was covered by existing prior art.
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance in Mannheim addressed a request by Amazon to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court ruled in favor of Amazon, citing principles of fairness and efficiency under Article 49(5) UPCA. This decision highlights the practical application of balancing procedural rights against the needs of international parties in complex patent litigation.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited v.Vijayawada Distilleries Private Limited & Another
The plaintiff filed an interim application alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark, "OFFICER'S CHOICE," and related labels by the defendants who adopted deceptively similar marks like "EXECUTIVE CHOICE" and "OLD CROWN". The court examined the proprietary rights, noting that the Plaintiff had secured registrations for these marks and variants. Based on a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and evidence of deceptive similarity, the court granted ad-interim relief.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision addresses a complex provisional measures application concerning hair care appliances. Dyson sought an injunction against Dreame International and Eurep for infringing EP 3 119 235 with its multi-functional hairdryers. While the court granted the requested provisional measures within the UPC Territory, it simultaneously referred key jurisdictional questions regarding Spain and the role of the authorized representative (Eurep) to the CJEU. This highlights the Court's careful balancing act between immediate injunctive relief and ensuring legal certainty across different EU jurisdictions.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
Topotarget Uk Limited v.The Controller General Of Patent And Designs, Mumbai and Ors.
Topotarget UK Limited appealed a rejection order against its patent application for a pharmaceutical composition (PXD101 with an in situ salt former). The rejection was based on insufficiency of disclosure, lack of inventive step, and Section 3(d) objections. The High Court found that the Controller misconstrued the invention as a salt per se, failing to consider the multi-component nature of the composition.
M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd. v.Pyromaitre INC. Thr Its Authorized Rep
The applicant (M/s. Pyromaitre Thermal India Pvt. Ltd.) filed a revision application challenging an order that rejected its application for rejection of the plaint in a commercial suit. The dispute centered on allegations of infringement of the plaintiff's industrial oven design by the respondent. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision to reject the application, finding no grounds for rejection.
Topsoe A/S v.HyGear B.V.
In this procedural matter, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by HyGear B.V. to change the language of proceedings from German to English for EP3802413. The court applied the fairness criteria under Art. 49(5) UPCA, considering factors like the predominant language in the hydrogen technology field and the practical disadvantages faced by non-German speaking parties. Ultimately, the request was granted, emphasizing that efficient communication is crucial in accelerated UPC proceedings.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This UPC decision, delivered by the Düsseldorf Local Chamber, addressed a complex infringement case concerning milk frothing technology. While the claimant sought an injunction and damages for patent infringement (EP 3 398 487 B1), the court ultimately dismissed the main claim. Crucially, the judgment provided important guidance on remedies, specifically clarifying that advertising materials are exempt from mandatory destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPC Agreement because they do not constitute 'relevant materials' used in production.
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.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses complex jurisdictional challenges raised by multiple respondents against a patent infringement suit. The court ruled that the UPC is incompetent to adjudicate claims concerning alleged infringements occurring outside the EU, specifically naming Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland. Crucially, the claimant failed to meet evidentiary requirements regarding assets within the jurisdiction necessary for certain jurisdictional arguments under Regulation 1215/2012. This case reinforces strict limits on the UPC's international reach.
Bobst Manchester Limited v.Nordmeccanica S.p.A.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a procedural application concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Nordmeccanica S.p.A. and Bobst Manchester Limited regarding EP3067437. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, granting the request to change the language from German to English. The ruling emphasized that when assessing fairness for a language change, the position of the defendant—who faces strict deadlines and must prepare its defense—is given decisive weight if interests are balanced.
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.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller rejected GUI as not being an article or having permanence. The court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
M/s Anondita Healthcare v.Faiz Mohammad S/O Abdul Rahim
The dispute arose from an injunction decree passed against Faiz Mohammad and others, concerning the unauthorized use of proprietary design/technology for manufacturing surgical gloves. The Decree-holders challenged the Executing Court's order maintaining the attachment of one machine during execution proceedings. The High Court held that the executing court cannot undertake a fresh inquiry into IP rights or infringement, setting aside the attachment order.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
E.R.Squibb & Sons LLC challenged the recommendation made by the Opposition Board regarding Patent No. IN340060, arguing that the board failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the patentee during post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare Limited. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the recommendation is only a suggestion for the Patent Authority, the petitioner could raise these objections during the final decision-making process or appeal.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Amgen N.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns the withdrawal of an appeal filed by Amgen against a prior ruling in infringement proceedings. The case, involving major biotech players like Regeneron and Sanofi, was ultimately withdrawn because the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Although the court permitted the procedural withdrawal, it strictly denied Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees, highlighting the precise application of UPC Rules of Procedure regarding timing and fee recovery.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This appeal court ruling addresses a procedural dispute regarding the jurisdiction for determining litigation costs following an initial judgment and subsequent appeals. Rematec sought to have its costs application referred back to the Local Division (GEI) based on prior rulings, but the Appeal Court denied this request. The court clarified that cost determination always originates at the GEI under the Rules of Procedure, regardless of whether the application follows a decision from the Appeal Court. This reinforces strict procedural adherence in UPC litigation.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because the renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
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.