IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 31 of 50 · 1,474 total
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
In this legal proceeding before Brussels (BE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_46FFEC8858, Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG appeared in dispute with ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Gold Coast Developers Pvt. Ltd. for using a deceptively similar trademark. The plaintiff claimed that the trademark 'CITYWALK' is a unique mark adopted by them in 2004 and has become an industry standard for shopping malls and commercial spaces in India. The court allowed the plaintiff's application for exemption from filing original documents and advance service to the defendants.
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v.Tech Square Engineering Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed Toyota's appeal, directing the removal of Tech Square Engineering's registration for the mark ALPHARD. The court found that Toyota had established prior adoption and spill-over reputation of the mark in India. The respondent's adoption of the mark was found to lack bona fides. The court ordered the rectification of the Register of Trade Marks to reflect the removal of the impugned mark.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑22 of SoftView’s ’729 patent, alleging they are obvious over prior‑art handheld browsers (Zaurus, Pad++) and SVG standards, with claim 21 also relying on SVF. The petition invokes estoppel and issue preclusion based on earlier PTAB findings for related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑35 of SoftView’s ’154 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, SVG and SVF prior art and arguing that the claims are patentably indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑37 of SoftView’s ’628 patent, asserting obviousness over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and arguing the claims are indistinct from already invalidated claims in related patents.
Google LLC et al. v.SoftView LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 115 claims of SoftView’s ’889 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over Zaurus, Pad++, and SVG references and are indistinct from previously cancelled claims in related patents.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses multiple procedural applications in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order deals with Acer's application for production of comparable licence agreements under Rule 190, requests for a confidentiality regime under Rules 262A and 262.2, the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., and Dolbys request for an extension of deadlines. The subject matter includes an infringement action, a counterclaim for revocation, and a counterclaim for rate-setting.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus have settled the IPR concerning U.S. Patent 11,031,677, filing a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board is asked to end the review under statutory authority.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Treace Medical announced a confidential settlement with Fusion Orthopedics, ending a lawsuit over its Lapiplasty bunion correction system. The agreement resolves multiple infringement and unfair competition claims.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus settled their IPR dispute before the trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
A confidential settlement agreement was filed, leading to a joint motion to terminate the IPR.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.TREACE MEDICAL CONCEPTS, INC.
Paragon 28, Inc. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 30 claims of Treace Medical’s bunion‑correction patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 17 claims of InterDigital’s ’606 video‑encoding patent, asserting obviousness over Sekiguchi, VCEG‑AJ21, Xiong and H.264. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analysis linking each limitation to the prior art.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
Appeal RoP220.2
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Generic Order
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Infringement Action
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as entirely inadmissible the appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 19 December 2025, which had ordered Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that Adobe had failed to first obtain authorization to appeal from the first instance court as required by Rule 220.
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
This order concerns an application by the plaintiff for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) under the revised Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, rejecting the plaintiff's request for 60% reimbursement.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Infringement Action
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.