IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 42 of 50 · 1,474 total
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-24) under reference UPC-000065, UERAN Technology LLC appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited, the sole registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 951 625 concerning an optical apparatus for bundling laser light, brought an infringement action against IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG based on claim 6 of the patent. The action concerns alleged direct literal infringement, and subsidiarily direct equivalent infringement, in respect of the national parts of the patent in force in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Romania. The defendant filed a counterclaim for invalidity. The Local Chamber Mannheim held an oral hearing on January 27, 2026 and rendered its decision on February 24, 2026.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by Gowling WLG, a law firm, for public access to written pleadings and evidence from terminated appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_523/2024) between Sumi Agro and Syngenta concerning patent EP 2 152 073. The Court held that reasoned requests for access must be directed to the relevant court instance (Court of First Instance or Court of Appeal) and must be sufficiently specified. The request was granted in part for the listed written pleadings but dismissed for exhibits (as too ambiguous) and for two application documents that did not exist in the appeal file.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Suinno's applications for rehearing of its 12 July 2025 order and decision, which had upheld a €300,000 security for costs order and entered a default decision dismissing Suinno's infringement action against Microsoft regarding EP 2 671 173. The Court held that Suinno failed to establish a fundamental procedural defect under Art. 81(1) UPCA, as its arguments amounted to mere disagreement with the Court's reasoning rather than demonstrating a defect so serious that the same decision would not have been taken without it.
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Gowling WLG (applicant) in Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, requested access under R. 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_446/2025 and 520/2025) concerning EP 1 830 843. The Court of Appeal held that reasoned requests for access must be made separately to each instance, that requests must be specified and cannot require the Court to search and select documents, and granted partial access to the written pleadings with redactions for personal data and confidential information while dismissing the request for exhibits as overly broad.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Vusura Technology LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑25 of Vusura’s ’303 patent, which covers multimedia content presentation during telephone calls. The challenger relies on the 2007 Roundtree publication to argue obviousness under §103.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The petitioner, Uflex Limited, filed an application seeking permission to amend its revocation petition concerning Patent No. IN 396443, which relates to the recycling of multilayer plastics used in packaging. The court allowed the amendment and also granted permission for the petitioner to file confidential customer details in a sealed cover.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma Gmbh And Co v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
Boehringer Ingelheim appealed against a single judge's decision regarding the maintainability of a revocation petition (CO (COMM. IPD-PAT) 38/2022). The core issues were whether a revocation petition could survive after the patentee pleaded invalidity in an infringement suit, or if it could continue after the patent expired by efflux of time.
Kenvue Brands Llc & Anr v.Rspl Limited
The court addressed a counter claim filed by Rspl Limited seeking revocation of Indian Patent IN 339964, titled 'Absorbent Article Demonstrating Controlled Deformation And Longitudinal Fluid Distribution'. Additionally, an application was filed for staying the said patent.
Grains Research And Development Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant filed an appeal challenging the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for a method of controlling insects in stored food using synthetic amorphous silica. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(d).
CRRC Meishan Co. Ltd. et al. v.Howmet Aerospace Inc.
CRRC Meishan has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of Howmet Aerospace’s blind‑fastener patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references including Corbett 2018, Corbett 1981, Hurd, Sadri, and the BobTail catalog.
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed a petition for inter partes review of Moskowitz Family’s U.S. Patent 10,064,738 covering spinal intervertebral fusion devices. The challenger alleges that the parent application Moskowitz 440, together with Waugh (and Michelson 019), makes the asserted claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition seeks cancellation of 16 claims.
IPG Photonics Corporation v.Trumpf Laser- Und Systemtechnik GMBH
IPG Photonics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of TRUMPF’s ’054 laser‑fiber patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art fiber‑laser references. The petition outlines four grounds covering the full claim set.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents on November 7, 2025. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file replies and complete pleadings before listing the matter for final hearing.
Faiveley Transport Tours v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Faiveley Transport Tours filed an appeal under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging a previous order issued by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs dated November 07, 2025. The appellant seeks to quash that order and obtain a patent grant for application no. 202117042875.
Asian Paints Limited v.Smt. Manju Rani Jindal And Ors.
Asian Paints Limited filed a suit against Smt. Manju Rani Jindal and others alleging infringement and passing off concerning its trade marks (ASIAN PAINTS and ASIAN). The dispute centered on the Defendants' use of the mark 'SUPER ASIAN PLUS' on paint-related goods like wall putty and cement paints. Given the Defendants' failure to contest the suit, the court decreed the suit in favor of Asian Paints.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
This case before the Vienna Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 705 415 B1, directed to packaging for food products comprising a cardboard or paperboard tray and a lid. Messerle GmbH brought an infringement action against Sabert Corporation Europe S.A., which filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
1 Paris Local Division UPC_CFI_283/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 19/02/2026 concerning R. 262.1(b) Request for access to the case file - UPC_CFI_697/2025 APPLICANT Gowling WLG 38 avenue de l'Opera, 75002, Paris, FR Represented by Mari
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendant's request for security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in proceedings concerning EP 3 859 566. The Defendant, Wizart Inc., sought at least EUR 300,000 in security, arguing that the Claimant, Leap Tools Inc., is a Canadian company with no UPC presence and limited annual revenue. The Court held that the Defendant failed to meet its burden of substantiation, as it neither addressed applicable Canadian law regarding enforcement of foreign judgments nor demonstrated that the Claimant's financial position raised legitimate concerns about recoverability of costs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a. O.
This provisional procedural order concerns European Patent EP 3 805 415 and was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in consolidated proceedings. The defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) filed a request to designate certain information as trade secrets or confidential information under Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. The court addressed the defendants' requests regarding the protection of confidential information and the restriction of access to specific individuals.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in a patent infringement dispute concerning European Patent EP2590626. The primary issue is GSK's application under Rule 263 to amend its claim to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products.' Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
SANOFI-AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, SANOFI-AVENTIS GROUPE S.A., SANOFI WINTHROP INDUSTRIE S.A., and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.AMGEN, INC
This order concerns an application for suspensive effect filed by Sanofi and Regeneron in connection with their application for rehearing of a Court of Appeal decision that had rejected their revocation requests against Amgen's European Patent EP 3 666 797. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect, holding that the applicants failed to substantiate why suspensive effect should be granted and that the underlying decision rejecting the revocation requests did not alter the parties' legal situation, as the patent had remained valid throughout the appeal proceedings.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.'s withdrawal of its applications for leave to appeal cost decisions issued by the Hamburg Local Division in proceedings involving EP 3 167 888. Alexion's provisional measures applications had been dismissed with costs orders against it, and Samsung's subsequent cost decision applications were found only partially justified. With Alexion's consent and both parties waiving costs, the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and closed the proceedings.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et. al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division concerned EP 3 296 274, involving an infringement action by Corning Incorporated against multiple defendants including Hisense and TCL entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation filed by the Hisense defendants. During the interim procedure, the claimant partially withdrew the infringement action against the Hisense defendants, and the Hisense defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to each other's requests. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed against the Hisense defendants, and ordered 40% reimbursement of the counterclaim court fees to the Hisense defendants.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
Syntorr LP filed a patent infringement action against the Arthrex companies before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 2 670 898. The defendants sought security for costs under R. 158.1 RoP, which was granted in the amount of €2,000,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the orders, holding that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement from an EU-licensed insurer provided adequate protection, and ordered the release of the bank guarantee Syntorr had provided.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health appealed an order of the Paris Local Division rejecting its application for provisional measures against Sophia Genetics regarding European Patent EP 3 443 066, and sought suspensive effect for the associated interim award of costs of EUR 400,000. The Court of Appeal held the application for suspensive effect admissible but unfounded, finding that Guardant failed to demonstrate manifest errors or infringement of fundamental procedural rights, as the record showed both parties had requested interim reimbursement of costs of EUR 600,000. The Court rejected Sophia's request to set a payment deadline and dismissed it as inadmissible.
SEG Solar, Inc. et al. v.--
SEG Solar and affiliated entities have filed an IPR petition challenging Jinko's 2023 solar‑cell patent, asserting that 18 claims are obvious over multiple Chinese patents and academic papers. The petition lays out detailed claim‑by‑claim mappings to prior art and seeks cancellation under § 318(b).
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.