IP Cases — 2026
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 4 of 10 · 299 total
Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. v.The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks
This is an appeal filed by Ever Resource Ltd & Anr. challenging an order dated 31.12.2025 passed by The Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications regarding additional documents, exemptions, and condonation of delay.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
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.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the scope and proportionality of confidentiality measures in complex patent litigation involving FRAND licensing. The court ruled on access rights for internal staff, affirming that employees are generally essential for a party's effective representation, even if it slightly compromises strict confidentiality regimes. Crucially, the ruling also provided a mechanism to protect third parties by imposing temporary bars on negotiations when confidential license data is involved.
Tak Technologies Private Limited v.Sagi Faifer & Anr.
Tak Technologies Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 477619 held by Mr. Sagi Faifer. The court issued notice and directed Respondent No. 1 to file a reply within four weeks.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson successfully appealed a provisional measures decision against Dreame's hair styling products before the UPC Court of Appeal. The court upheld the injunction and extended its scope to cover newer versions of Dreame's curling attachments, confirming that infringement is sufficient grounds for preventing future unauthorized use. This ruling provides clarity on how courts interpret claim features in relation to physical configurations and reinforces the broad application of provisional measures.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, Juul Labs successfully sought permission to withdraw its appeal against a revocation judgment. The court granted the withdrawal based on the consent of the opposing party, NJOY. While Juul Labs received a 60% refund of its court fees, it was ultimately ordered to cover the legal costs incurred by NJOY during the appeal process. This case highlights the procedural requirements for withdrawing appeals and the general rule regarding cost allocation in UPC litigation.
BFexaQC AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
In this UPC decision, the court dismissed the infringement claim against NVIDIA regarding EP 3 743 812. The patent relates to dynamic resource allocation in heterogeneous computing systems. While the main infringement suit failed, the defendant's counterclaim for revocation was not addressed because the condition precedent (the failure of the infringement action) was met. This case reinforces key procedural principles regarding claim construction and contingent counterclaims within the UPC framework.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In this complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC over EP 1 875 683, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its allegations of infringement during the oral hearing. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, emphasizing that mere dispute is sufficient when a claimant fails to present conclusive evidence.
Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
In this significant UPC decision, the court granted a revocation action against an LED patent (EP 3 926 698 B1) due to added subject-matter. While some claims were already invalidated in parallel proceedings, the UPC confirmed the invalidity of several remaining dependent claims. The ruling provides important guidance on how partial revocation affects dependent claims and addresses procedural hurdles related to amendments following complex litigation.
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Oswaal Books appealed a refusal order by the Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting their application for registration of the mark 'ONE FOR ALL' in Class 16. The lower court held that the phrase was common and descriptive, lacking inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The High Court overturned this decision, finding that the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive and capable of registration.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited to withdraw its patent infringement lawsuit against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. This case highlights how procedural flexibility in the UPC allows for the termination of litigation when parties reach a consensual resolution.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs), arguing that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation of 'design' and 'article'. The court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration. Consequently, all matters were set aside and remanded for fresh hearing.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Saurabh Arora v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents which dismissed a post-grant opposition filed against Patent No. IN 283059. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was unreasoned, failing to assess the technical merits of the prior art (D1) cited under Section 25(2)(c).
Landmark Crafts Limited v.Romil Gupta Trading As Sohan Lal Gupta & Anr.
The appellant sought rectification to cancel a registered device mark (No. 3986970) held by the respondent, alleging irregularities in its grant. The Deputy Registrar had previously cancelled the registration. The appeal before the High Court questioned whether the substitution of marks constituted a substantial alteration under the Trade Marks Act.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
In this procedural case, KEEEX SAS successfully defended against a motion by Adobe and associated parties seeking a default judgment. The dispute centered on whether KEEEX's financial guarantee met the strict requirements set out in the UPC Rules of Procedure (RdP). The Court found that while initial documentation was imperfect, KEEEX demonstrated good faith and diligence by providing proof of funds within the deadline and subsequently submitting the required banking guarantee. This decision reinforces the principle of procedural fairness over rigid formalistic demands.
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.
AWM s.r.l. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This UPC CFI decision addresses a request for cost determination, which was complicated by the automatic suspensive effect of an appeal lodged against the underlying revocation counterclaim. The court clarified that Article 74(2) UPCA's mandatory suspensive effect extends to all parts of the decision, including those concerning legal costs. Consequently, rather than dismissing the application as untimely, the Court opted to stay the cost proceedings until the UPC Court of Appeal resolves the main dispute.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case concerning food packaging (EP 3 705 415 B1), the court dismissed both the infringement action brought by Messerle GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. The decision highlighted critical procedural requirements under the UPC, stressing that parties must present their full factual case and evidence as early as possible to avoid challenges regarding timeliness. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to patent practitioners about the strict evidentiary standards required in front-loaded litigation.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines, Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Central Division granted a decision by default against American Wave Machines, Inc., after they failed to file a defense in a revocation action concerning EP 2 728 089. The subsequent substantive analysis confirmed the Claimant's arguments, leading to the partial revocation of Claim 1. This case underscores the strict procedural requirements within the UPC and demonstrates how default judgments can be utilized when defendants fail to engage with proceedings.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
Provivi, Inc. v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
Provivi, Inc. challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application based on alleged non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of a reasoned decision. The petitioner argued that it was denied an opportunity to be heard before the refusal order dated 30.05.2023 was passed. The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice and lacked reasons, setting it aside.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.
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.
Canva Pty Ltd & Ors. v.Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited & Anr.
Canva appealed a single judge's decision that had granted an interim injunction against its 'Present and Record' feature, alleging infringement of Rxprism Health Systems Private Limited's Indian Patent No. 360726. The appeal challenged the finding of infringement and the direction to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs as security.
Hamilton Housewares Pvt Ltd v.Carl Freudenberg Kg & Anr.
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 64(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 seeking the revocation and removal of Indian Patent no. IN541962 from the Register of Patents. The court noted that a related suit was pending before another judge and directed the matter to be listed before that same bench.
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).
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.