IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 33 of 50 · 1,474 total
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
S.S. White Burs Inc v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks, & S.S. White Dental Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted rectification of the respondent's trademark registration for 'S.S. WHITE' in Class 5 and Class 10, as the petitioner, S.S. White Burs Inc, had prior use and registration of the mark 'S.S. WHITE BURS INC' in Class 10. The court held that the respondent's use of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion among consumers. The respondent was directed to file an affidavit indicating the quantity and batch number of the existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and was allowed to dispose of the existing stock within a specified time frame.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Application Rop 223
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd v.Lakha Ram Sharma
The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by M/S Balar Marketing Pvt. Ltd challenging an order of the Trial Court that refused to allow the examination of an additional witness. The case involves a trademark dispute over the mark 'KUNDAN' used for electric goods. The petitioner had filed multiple suits against the respondent, including one for trademark infringement and another for passing off. The court held that the petitioner's application to examine the additional witness was inconsequential and did not warrant interference.
Johnson Paints Co v.Johnson Paints Private Limited
The Patna High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Johnson Paints Co, restraining Johnson Paints Private Limited from using the trademark 'JOHNSON' with prefixes and suffixes or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The court found that the plaintiff had established a better common law right and that the defendant's use of the trademark would lead to dilution of the plaintiff's brand identity and cause deception of the public. The court also directed the learned Commercial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. et al.
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich upheld an order requiring the Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, to provide EUR 300,000 in security for costs in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1. The Claimant argued that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' should relieve it of the obligation to provide security for costs, but the court rejected this argument. The court also held that merely taking out ATE insurance does not automatically remove the obligation to provide security for costs.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Infringement Action
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_92A1E8747E, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
QUANTIFICARE S.A.. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1, brought by Quantificare S.A. against five Canfield Scientific entities and ESTHETEC SAS before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The patent, which relates to a French-language European patent granted in 2018, is in force in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The key legal issue addressed is whether establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State is sufficient to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, including where the patent proprietor carves out claims for procedural reasons.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Revocation Action
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV , Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720 concerning a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's maximum 20-year protection period had expired on 7 August 2024, but the court found the action admissible because BASF had initiated evidence preservation proceedings in Belgium and announced damages claims for the period when the patent was in force. The court dismissed the revocation action an
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.C.E.F. S.r.l., A.G.A. SRL, MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Infringement Action
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.a., Motorcard Bike S.I.
Dainese S.p.A., an Italian manufacturer of protective motorcycle equipment including the DAir® airbag system, brought an infringement action against Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l. (a Spanish company) concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364, alleging that the defendants' Tech Air 3 System and Tech Air 10 Race System products infringed the patent. The decision addresses jurisdictional issues under Article 8 of EU Regulation No. 1215/2012, examining whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments when one defendant is domiciled in Spain and is sued for infringement of the Spanish portion of the same patent.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ms Anuradha Sharma & Anr v.Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited & Ors
The Delhi High Court set aside an order granting an interlocutory injunction to Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Limited, allowing Ms Anuradha Sharma to continue using the mark 'SHATAM JEEVA'. The court found no deceptive similarity between the rival marks and no misrepresentation. The appeal was allowed, and the observations made were prima facie in nature. The court's decision will not influence the consideration of the merits of the suit pending before the Commercial Court.
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Application for provisional measures
Nokia Technologies Oy and other v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd., and other
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy applied for an ex parte provisional measure described as an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales. The dispute arises from global SEP litigation between the parties, with infringement actions pending before the Local Chambers Mannheim and Munich, and a parallel rate-setting proceeding initiated by Geely before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court. Nokia seeks to prevent Geely from obtaining an 'Interim Licence' or equivalent measure in the Chinese proceedings, arguing such relief would interfere with the UPC's jurisdiction over the European patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075.
Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India v.Le Shark Apparel Limited
The Bombay High Court overruled a preliminary objection and allowed an appeal against an order directing the removal of a trademark from the register. The appellant, Anil Shah Trading As Le Shark India, had challenged the order passed by a single judge in a commercial miscellaneous petition filed by Le Shark Apparel Limited. The court held that the appeal was maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Appeal RoP220.1
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under Rule 192 against WEPA Nederland B.V in connection with European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which relates to tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing the seizure of descriptions, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, The Netherlands. The court applied specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure, including provisions on password-protected drives and cloud-stored documents, and ruled that the Applicant's representatives may not be present during the seizure while Defendant's personnel may be questioned but cannot be compelled to answer under penalty.
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.