IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 41 of 50 · 1,474 total
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
This is a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), which relates to systems and methods for controlling position, particularly wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders. ABM alleges that Philips' NightBalance position therapy device infringes device claims 1, 2, and 4 of the patent. The patent had previously been confirmed in amended form by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal on 25 December 2024 following opposition proceedings initiated by a Philips group member.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
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.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a request by Sibio Technology Limited for further exchanges of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in its appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing its revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 831 283 B1 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Sibio argued that further pleadings were needed because Abbott, in its Statement of response, maintained six auxiliary requests as an alternative to upholding the appealed judgment. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the first instance proceedings and automatically form part of the appeal proceedings under Rules 222.1 and 222.2 RoP, requiring no refiling.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
It follows from Rule 370.7 RoP that if a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid for that counterclaim. However, if one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage (e.g. because the statement of claim was served much later), that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by the other defendants. In this situation, it is not the same action/counterclaim in the meaning of Rule 370.7 RoP, even if th
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This procedural order concerns a dispute over access to case files (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had previously granted the applicant's request for file inspection on January 27, 2026, prompting Respondent Huawei to seek Panel Review under Rule 333.1 RoP and a suspension of the order's effects. The Rapporteur issued this order addressing whether, under Rule 335 RoP, he should suspend his own order pending the Panel Review to prevent the review from becoming moot.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
Daikin Industries Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Daikin Industries Ltd appealed the refusal of its Indian Patent Application by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The refusal was based on a lack of novelty in view of prior art D1: US3840070A. The court allowed an auxiliary request to amend claim 1, finding that the amendment did not broaden the scope and was disclosed in the specification.
T-Mobile International Ag And Co. Kg. v.The Controller Genereal Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Anr.
T-Mobile appealed a rejection order concerning its patent application related to optimizing mobile terminal performance. The original rejection was based on the grounds that the invention constituted a mere scheme or mental act under Section 3(m) of the Patents Act, 1970. The High Court noted the lack of sufficient guidelines and ordered the matter to be remanded for de novo consideration.
Kas Zainulabdin And Co v.Gokul Chand Manoj Kumar And Sons Gm And Sons Private Limited And Anr.
This case involves a suit for infringement and passing off. The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed facts regarding their knowledge of the impugned product. However, the court dismissed the application seeking dispensation under Section 12A, finding that the grounds provided by the plaintiff were sufficiently explained and the cause of action was continuing and recurring in nature.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' objection and for the respondents to file a rejoinder, and requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign an additional technically qualified judge with expertise in the relevant technical field (classification A61F/A61B).
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer et al.
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division, in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent No. EP2590626. PBNT filed a submission requesting the court to order GSK to limit the number of Auxiliary Requests to ten and to grant an extension of the deadline for filing PBNT's Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence, Reply to the Counterclaim, and Defence to the application to amend the patent. The order addresses these procedural requests under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure.
Shaafi Naturcure Llp v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appellant challenged an objection raised by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The court noted that the appellant had entered into an agreement with the National Biodiversity Authority, which could address the Section 3(p) objection. To clarify the matter, the Court directed the respondent to provide a detailed response regarding both the biodiversity agreement and a specific chart demonstrating inventive step.
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.
Plivo India Pvt Ltd v.Mr Arvind Eshwarlal
Plivo India Pvt Ltd appealed an order that set aside its attempt to challenge an arbitral award. The dispute arose from alleged violation of a Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement (NDA) by Mr Arvind Eshwarlal. The High Court overturned the lower court's findings, specifically regarding limitation and the scope of claims in arbitration.
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.