IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 37 of 50 · 1,474 total
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., - 65-16, Sandan-ro 163 beongil, Danwongu, Ansansi,
This revocation action concerns European patent EP 3 926 698 B1 relating to a light-emitting diode. The claimant sought revocation on grounds of added subject-matter and lack of inventive step, later adding a novelty ground. The defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form through multiple auxiliary requests. The Court addressed the consequences of a parallel Court of Appeal decision that had already revoked claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9, and ruled on the admissibility of subsequent amendments and late-filed evidence.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies petitions the PTAB to invalidate Sanas.AI’s 12,417,756 patent covering real‑time accent mimicking, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art speech‑processing references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition to institute an IPR against OptimNet’s U.S. Patent 9,313,101, asserting that claims 1‑6 are obvious over the Mo and Peng references. The petition seeks cancellation of the challenged claims.
Asustek Computer Inc v.Nokia Technologies Oy
The Delhi High Court heard petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc seeking the revocation and removal of two specific Indian Patents (Nos. 381056 and 320467) from the register. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding document division and exemptions.
Jntl Consumer Health I (Switzerland) Gmbh v.The Controller Of Patents
The appellant filed an application seeking condonation of a seven-day delay in filing an appeal. The court allowed this application. Subsequently, the main appeal was listed to challenge the Controller's decision refusing the appellant's patent application.
Communication Components Antena Inc v.Rosenberger Hochfrequenztechnik Gmbh & Co. KG
The plaintiff, Communication Components Antena Inc., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 240893 concerning 'Asymmetrical Beams For Spectrum Efficiency'. The dispute involved multiple entities within the Rosenberger Group accused of manufacturing and selling infringing antennas.
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.
Alkem Laboratories Limited v.Novartis Ag & Anr.
Alkem Laboratories Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN414518 and its removal from the Register of Patents. The respondent submitted that the patent in question had already been revoked, which was acknowledged by the petitioner's counsel.
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This is an appeal concerning an application for interim measures related to alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation. ONWARD Medical N.V., the registered proprietor of the patent, sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Division Munich, which issued an order on October 17, 2025. The appeal addressed key procedural and substantive issues including the assertion of a non-registered claim version in interim proceedings, the admissibility of auxiliary requests under Rule 222 of the Rules of Procedure, and the determination of intended use under Article 26 EPGÜ for indirect patent infringement.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (in UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics CO., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Google LLC v.--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Scipharm Sarl v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870, to which Belparts responded with a counterclaim for infringement and an application to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court granted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and entered the decision on the register without issuing a cost decision.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG a.o. v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. a.o.
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiffs withdrew the action and requested a 50% reimbursement of court fees, with the defendants consenting to the withdrawal. The parties had reached an out-of-court settlement under which each side bears its own costs, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH's request for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) of its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The underlying decision of March 18, 2026 had largely found that ALPINA's milk frother 'ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo' infringed European Patent EP 3 398 487, while ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation was unsuccessful. ALPINA filed its appeal on March 19, 2026, and sought suspensive effect at least until it becomes clear whether and to what extent CUP&CINO will seek enforcement in parallel proceedings concerning related European patents.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International (claimant) v.Fives ECL (defendant)
1 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, Division centrale (Section Munich) rendue le 24 mars 2026 EN-TETE Le défaut d’intérêt à agir et l’autorité de la chose jugée, que le défendeur à une action invoque pour dénier à
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Altria Client Services LLC v.--
Altria Client Services LLC petitions the PTAB to cancel a design patent for a dog‑toy set that mimics Marlboro cigarette packaging, citing a 1959 Life Magazine ad and a 1976 trademark registration as prior art.
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.