IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 43 of 50 · 1,474 total
X Corp., v.Search & Share Technologies, LLC
X Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of the ’952 patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over the Malla, Walther, and Smadja references under §§ 102 and 103.
Fertin Pharma A/S v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Fertin Pharma A/S appealed the Assistant Controller's decision to reject its patent application (no. 202017042442). The High Court found that the rejection order was cryptic, lacked clarity of objection, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting the claims based on prior art documents D1-D3.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (and Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited in the CFI main action) v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-Link Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-Link Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal concerning public access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link had applied before the Local Division Munich for access to certain pleadings and annexes filed by Huawei and Netgear in related infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 678 321, after redaction of personal data. Netgear opposed the request, seeking its rejection or, alternatively, that TP-Link only receive access to fully redacted versions of the documents. The appeal proceedings concern the contested order of the Local Division Munich dated November 28, 2025.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A. and 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 17/02/2026 (R.19 Objection préliminaire) ENTETE La condition fixée par l’article 33.1.b/ relative à « l’action porte sur la même cont
Malikie Innovations Limited v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-17) under reference UPC-000080, Malikie Innovations Limited appeared in dispute with Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Inc., Beijing Xiaomi Mobile Software Co., Ltd, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH , Xiaomi Technology France SAS, Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L. and Xiaomi Tec concerning patent rights
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an appeal decision concerning European Patent EP 2 548 648, involving Rematec GmbH & Co KG as the appellant (plaintiff in infringement proceedings and defendant in nullity counterclaim proceedings) and Europe Forestry B.V. as the respondent (defendant in infringement and counterclaimant in nullity). The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions regarding the need to examine dependent claims when the independent claim is upheld, the obligation to issue a final decision rather than remand, and the requirements for ordering publication of decisions under Article 80 EPGÜ. The decision establishes important principles about the scope of appellate review in combined infringement and nullity proceedings.
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused the bioMérieux appellants' requests to stay revocation appeal proceedings pending parallel EPO opposition proceedings and to extend the deadline for filing their Statement of grounds of appeal. The court held that a rapid EPO decision was not sufficiently imminent to justify a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed to warrant extending the strict deadline regime under the Rules of Procedure.
Google LLC v.Valtrus Innovation Limited et al.
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 14‑21 and 24‑28 of U.S. Patent 7,057,509, asserting anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art systems for object monitoring and tracking.
Global Car Group Pte. Limited v.Vienna IT Solutions Private Limited
Petitioners, owners of the trademark 'Cars24' and domain 'Cars24.com', challenged an arbitral award that dismissed their complaint seeking transfer of the disputed domain name 'cars24.in'. The petitioners argued that the respondent was engaging in domain squatting and lacked bona fide use. However, the Delhi District Court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the original arbitral award.
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc v.The Controller Of Patents
Mitsui Chemical Agro Inc appealed regarding the possibility of amending its patent claims. The appellant sought permission to limit the claimed compounds to 52, arguing this would not contravene Section 59 of the Patents Act, 1970. The respondent argued against the amendment based on previous judicial precedents.
Pawan Kumar Goel v.Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction for infringing Indian Patent 369150 related to extracting Alpha Yohimbine. The plaintiff later sought conditional withdrawal, arguing that the defendant was using a different plant species (Rauwolfia Vomitoria) and thus there was no current cause of action. However, the court found evidence suggesting the defendant was indeed using Rauwolfia tetraphylla, leading it to deny the permission for withdrawal.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd.
1 di 4 Milan Local Division UPC CFI n. 770/2024, n. 556/2025 ordinanza depositata il 13.2.2026 ATTORE Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. (‘Pirelli’) CONVENUTO Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., ltd. (‘SYR’) ORGANO DECIDENTE presiding judge e judge-rapporteur Pierluigi Perrotti LINGUA DEL PROCEDI
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. v.Germ Dome Industries LLC
Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.
Apple Inc. v.WeCrevention, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 31 claims of WeCrevention’s high‑speed memory chip patent. The petition argues that each claim is obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering memory modules, ASIC controllers, and 3‑D stacking techniques.
Colonel Dhyan Mayadas Retired v.Union Of India & Ors.
The petitioner, a retired military officer, filed a patent application for 'Ballistic Armour Shield' in 2018. Despite the application being deemed 'in order for grant' by the Patent Office (Respondent No. 2), it remained pending with DRDO (Respondent No. 3) for nearly seven years without consideration. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction to expedite the process.
Merchint Foods and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v.Samtani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The petitioner filed a Leave Petition seeking permission under Clause XII of the Letters Patent Act to institute a suit against the respondent. The petitioner argued that despite the respondents residing outside the court's jurisdiction, the transactions and effects of trademark infringement and passing off were felt within Mumbai. The Court granted leave for the proposed suit.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the extension of limitation period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et. al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated an infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 2 563 695 B1 against seven defendants. The defendants filed a preliminary objection seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction/competence or transfer to The Hague Local Division. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objections, and the defendants applied for panel review under R. 333 RoP, which was also rejected, though leave to appeal was granted.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Surrozen Operating, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging U.S. Patent 12,297,278 covering broad tetravalent Wnt‑surrogate antibodies. The petition asserts lack of written description, enablement, indefiniteness, and anticipation by the Garcia publication.
Uflex Limited v.The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr.
The court was asked to consider a revocation petition filed by Uflex Limited against The Shakti Plastic Industries & Anr. The judge noted uncertainty regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter.
M/s.Green Energy Resources v.Union of India and others
M/s.Green Energy Resources filed a writ petition seeking the restoration of Patent No.343974, which had lapsed because the renewal fees were not deposited by the Petitioner's authorized agent. The court considered arguments regarding agent negligence and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the limitation period.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ag & Anr v.Natco Pharma Limited
The Delhi High Court heard arguments regarding a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 567/2024). The court settled several issues, including ownership and potential grounds for revocation. Subsequently, the court appointed a Local Commissioner to expedite evidence recording and constituted a confidentiality club upon application by the Defendant.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Dr Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi Trading As M/S PUSHKAR PAIN CLINIC AND PHYSIOTHERAPY CENTER SENIOR HOUSE v.Mr Tivender Kumar Kaushik
The Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an appeal filed by Dr. Vinod Bhaskar Rao Njoshi against the rejection of his interim injunction application. The court recognized the appellant's claim that the respondent, a former employee, was infringing upon his established trademark, 'Pushkar Pain Clinic and Physiotherapy Center.' As an interim measure, the High Court granted a temporary restraint, allowing the respondent to continue operating their clinic but strictly prohibiting the use of the disputed name until further hearing.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH a. o.
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, involving a patent infringement action by Maxeon Solar against multiple defendants and counterclaims for revocation. Following settlement negotiations, the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaims for revocation. The court allowed the withdrawals, released the security for costs, but dismissed applications by both the claimant and defendants for partial reimbursement of court fees.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH. a. o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha sued Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. for infringement of European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, which relates to a developer replenishing container and system. The Düsseldorf Local Division found that the defendants' toner bottles infringed the patent, dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, damages, and publication of the operative part of the decision on the defendants' websites.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The plaintiff, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, filed a patent infringement action against Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 on November 19, 2025. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff declared withdrawal of the action, and the defendant consented. Both parties jointly indicated that no cost decision was necessary due to an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This case concerns a claim for damages brought by Fives ECL, SAS against REEL GmbH relating to European Patent No. EP 1 740 740. The plaintiff filed a request for determination of damages on August 8, 2023, following a prior patent infringement proceeding between the parties before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the applicable law for lost profit claims, holding that national (German) law applies when the factual circumstances were completed before the Unified Patent Court came into force on June 1, 2023, and that both national law and the UPCA, being based on Directive 2004/48/EC, should yield the same assessment of lost profits.
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.