IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 40 of 50 · 1,474 total
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate twelve claims of Carma’s ridesharing patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art references Olmi, Paul, and Jarvinen. The petition includes detailed claim constructions and a single obviousness ground under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Carma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
ITW GSE APS v.Dabico Airport Solutions Pvt Ltd
Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking permanent injunction and damages against defendants for infringing their Indian Patent No. 330145 related to PCA units, which were allegedly used at various airports. Defendant No. 3 sought its deletion from the array of parties, arguing it was not involved in the infringement activities or liable for the actions of other entities.
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 notices and directed the respondent to file a reply within four weeks.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
Schneider Electric It Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Schneider Electric It Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Assistant Controller's rejection of its patent application (No. 201617000209). However, the Appellant subsequently sought to withdraw the appeal.
Universal Test Solutions Llp v.Punam Kumari Singh and Others
The Plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking restraint against the Defendants for alleged infringement of multiple trademarks (Test Magic, eZscript, UTS) and passing off. The dispute centered on the ownership and usage rights of software development under the name 'Universal Test Solutions'. The Court examined the evidence regarding goodwill and reputation but found the material insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
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.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Microsoft Corporation v.ToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft petitions the PTAB to invalidate ToutVirtual’s virtual‑systems‑management patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a lack of priority for half the claims.
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).
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeal challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The respondent authorities adopted a narrow interpretation, arguing that GUIs are mere software and not registrable articles. The High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the existing legal definitions must be interpreted expansively to recognize GUIs as industrial designs.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUI qualifies as a registrable design were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the cases for fresh consideration.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that the Controller adopted an unduly strict interpretation, failing to recognize GUIs as registrable designs. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests regarding GUI registration.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Western Digital Technologies Inc. v.Geonix International Private Limited
The appellants (Western Digital and Seagate) manufacture Hard Disk Drives (HDDs) bearing their registered trademarks. The respondents purchase these HDDs after they reach an 'end-of-life' stage, are extracted from equipment abroad, and imported into India. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that neither trademark infringement nor reverse passing off was established.
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke v.Controller of Patent and Designs
Vishal Prafulsingh Solanke challenged the refusal of his patent application (No. 879/MUM/2015) by the Assistant Controller of Patent and Designs, which was upheld in a prior appeal. The present Commercial Appeal sought to challenge this order further under Section 13 of the CCA, but the Court found that the statutory provisions did not permit such an appeal.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs on display screens. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply the correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents
Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.
Novo Nordisk A/S v.Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited & Anr.
Novo Nordisk appealed a rejection of its interlocutory injunction application regarding the import and sale of Semaglutide, claiming infringement of its patent. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that the suit patent was set to expire shortly, but also found prima facie evidence suggesting the suit patent could be challenged for obviousness based on prior art (Genus Patent IN'964).
Rajeev Prakash Agarwal v.Tata Play Limited and Others
The plaintiff, Rajeev Prakash Agarwal, sought an interim injunction restraining Tata Play Limited and others from using the mark 'ASTRO DUNIYA', alleging trademark infringement and passing-off. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the coined mark used for astrological services since 2005. However, the court found that no prima facie case was made out for either infringement or passing off, dismissing the interim application.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l
KeyMed brought a patent infringement action against Italian company PR Medical s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division, alleging infringement of EP 2575590 B2 through the marketing of an accessory called 'Detecto.' PR Medical raised a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) of the UPCA Agreement. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the two conditions under Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively as an exception.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
Gowling WLG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
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.