IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 38 of 50 · 1,474 total
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
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.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner sought orders regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court noted that the issue had been addressed by a Division Bench judgment in another appeal (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr).
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the lawsuit and requested a partial refund of court fees. The defendant consented to both the withdrawal and the fee refund, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_1963/2025 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 23 mars 2026 (R333 RdP révision d’une ordonnance) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1(b) AJUB relative au lien commercial entre le
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s U.S. Patent 11,041,149 covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition alleges lack of written description, enablement, and anticipates all claims under prior art US‑275.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed an IPR petition challenging Halozyme’s ’656 patent covering engineered PH20 hyaluronidase proteins. The petition asserts lack of written description and enablement and that US‑275 anticipates all claims.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging 27 claims of Smart Speaker’s ’720 patent, asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering microphones, WLAN, speakers, and lighting. The petition highlights a deficient examiner search and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Novartis Ag v.Bdr Pharmaceuticals International Private Limited
This order addresses several interlocutory applications filed by Novartis Ag against Bdr Pharmaceuticals International. The court granted exemptions from pre-institution mediation and allowed additional documents, while also considering arguments regarding the scope of the defendants' license under the Patents Act.
Wirtgen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Ors
Wirtgen Gmbh appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient claim definition under the Patents Act. The High Court found that the impugned order suffered from analytical and procedural deficiencies.
Daewoong Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v.Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks
Daewoong Pharmaceutical appealed the rejection of its patent application (No. 201817048074) by the Controller General, which was based on non-patentability under Section 3(d). The appeal challenged the decision to reject the application despite submissions regarding improved therapeutic efficacy and stability data.
Sanofi - Aventis v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks And Anr.
Sanofi - Aventis appealed an order from the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs. The appellant argued that the impugned order was perverse because it failed to adequately address arguments concerning lack of inventive steps and should have been based on Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.
HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v.Topsoe A/S
This order concerns HyGear B.V.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a case involving European patent EP3802413 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming. The main proceedings were initiated by Topsoe A/S against HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH, and the Technical University of Munich. The President of the Court of First Instance was asked to decide on the language change request pursuant to Rule 323 of the Rules of Procedure, with most parties consenting to the change except the Technical University of Munich.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions to invalidate claims 1‑10 of US 982, alleging they are anticipated and obvious in view of a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s US 12,122,824 patent covering an IV golimumab regimen for psoriatic arthritis, arguing lack of novelty and obviousness based on a Janssen‑sponsored clinical trial and FDA‑approved labeling.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al. v.Janssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate Janssen’s golimumab patent (US 11,041,020) on the basis that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the company’s own clinical‑trial protocol and other prior art.
Tv Today Network Limited v.News Laundry Media Private Limited
Tv Today Network Limited (Plaintiff) filed a suit alleging defamation, disparagement, and copyright infringement against News Laundry Media Private Limited (Defendant). The dispute centered on derogatory content aired by the Defendant. The court found that commercial disparagement was made out and granted an interim order directing the removal of specific defamatory remarks.
ITC Limited v.Philip Morris Products S.A.
ITC Limited appealed against an order that dismissed its post-grant opposition to Indian Patent No. 319780. The appeal challenged the dismissal on grounds that the impugned order was non-speaking and failed to consider crucial reply evidence and documents filed by ITC under Rule 59 of the Patents Rules, 2003. The Court found that the Controller had ignored categorical directions regarding these submissions.
Mati Therapeutics Inc v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Mati Therapeutics Inc filed an appeal against the Controller of Patents and Designs. The court order addressed arguments regarding the possibility of amending patent claims to comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970, and whether such amendments could be reviewed at a de novo stage.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 605 534, with Dolby International AB as the plaintiff and Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. as defendants, relating to smart TV technology and standard-essential audio/video codecs. The dispute centers on FRAND licensing obligations and whether Dolby holds a dominant position on the relevant market. The Düsseldorf Local Division held that a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU may arise where smart TVs cannot be offered without a license to the patent in suit, given consumer expectations of codec compatibility. The court further ruled that under the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation framework, if the alleged infringer fails to express willingness to take a license after being notified of infringement, the examination terminates without needing to assess whether the patent holder's offer is FRAND.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, (2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, (6) EUROSILICONE SAS, (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH, (9) G v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
This case concerns an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1, which relates to a method and device for producing milk foam with adjustable temperature. The plaintiff, CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG, brought the infringement claim against ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The key legal ruling addressed the scope of destruction remedies under Article 64(2)(e) UPCA, holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction because they are not covered by the statutory wording.
VEOLIA PROPRETE, VALINEA ENERGIE, MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU
1 UPC_CFI_417/2025 UPC_CFI_509/2025 UPC_CFI_528/2025 DECISION du tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction Unifiée du Brevet rendue le 18 mars 2026 EN-TETE : 1. L'article 123(3) CBE a pour objectif de garantir la sécurité juridique des tiers en interdisant toute exte
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate Sanas.ai’s real‑time accent‑correction patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references covering speech‑processing modules. All 18 claims are challenged.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of COGMEDIA’s ’141 Patent, asserting that the claimed social‑card UI features were obvious over earlier patents such as McQueen and Forsyth.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.COGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
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.