IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 32 of 50 · 1,474 total
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Application for provisional measures
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
This order concerns a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) in relation to European Patent EP 3 295 663. The preliminary injunction application had become devoid of purpose after the Court of Appeal set aside the Helsinki Local Division's earlier decision dismissing the infringement action and PI for lack of jurisdiction, and AIM Sport indicated it no longer wished to pursue the PI application. The Court disposed of the provisional measures application based on Rule 360 RoP (no longer need to adjudicate) and addressed the parties' requests regarding costs.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
In infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, the defendants alleged public prior use based on two 2008 projects (Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands) in which plugs allegedly embodying all features of the patent were supplied by IHC Handling Systems (later merged into IQIP B.V., a subsidiary of the claimant). The defendants filed a request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to order IQIP Holding B.V. and IQIP B.V. to produce extensive technical documentation regarding the prior plugs and assemblies. The Court partially awarded the request, finding it too broad and therefore limiting the scope of the production order.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Infringement Action
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
Generic Order
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762, in which CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG sues ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur, sets out directions for the further conduct of the case, including requirements for uniform patent interpretation, the presentation of validity attacks (particularly on inventive step), the proper formatting of auxiliary requests, and a timetable for revised submissions and responses. The court found the defendant's inventive step attacks insufficient and advised focusing on the strongest attacks, while also setting deadlines running from May 15, 2026 through June 19, 2026.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning the suspension of appeal proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Both parties jointly requested suspension of the appeal proceedings regarding an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation due to an out-of-court settlement. The Court of Appeal granted the joint request and ordered the suspension of both appeal proceedings to prevent the deadline for filing the appeal brief from expiring before decisions on the withdrawal applications are made.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v.Zapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Infringement Action
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
Application For Costs
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Infringement Action
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Appeal RoP220.1
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
Application for provisional measures
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
Infringement Action
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
The Court of Appeal had previously ordered ONWARD Medical N.V. to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. Niche Biomedical, Inc. filed a cost assessment application on 27 April 2026, but withdrew it the same day, stating it would refile the application at the Local Division Munich. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal by analogy to Rule 265(1) RoP without a hearing, finding that the respondent's interest was not affected and that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
fiskaly GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 titled 'SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS,' filed an application on April 20, 2026 seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. No main infringement action had yet been filed, but fiskaly indicated its intention to bring such an action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf following the requested inspection. The order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on April 27, 2026, under Article 60 of the European Patent Convention Agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV based on European Patent EP3841735. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed whether further submissions beyond those foreseen by R. 323.2 RoP should be considered, and weighed the relevance of English being the language of the patent and the technology field against the particular circumstances of the parties' size and domicile. The order was issued following consultation with the panel of the Local Division Brussels.
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.