IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 44 of 50 · 1,474 total
Valeo Systemes D’essuyage v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet sur la recevabilité de l’appel contre une ordonnance statuant sur une objection préliminaire rendue le 11 février 2026 EN-TETE Une ordonnance du juge-rapporteur qui fait droit à l’objection préliminaire mais ne met p
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition against IngenioSpec’s ’901 patent covering smart eyeglasses, asserting that all 59 claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and requesting cancellation of the entire patent.
SCHNELL S.P.A., A.W.M. S.R.L v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This order concerns an application for a cost decision filed by AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation in UPC CFI no. 178/2024 and no. 432/2024. The respondent Progress Maschinen & Automation AG argued that its appeal against the first instance decision, filed on 11.12.2025, had automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA, rendering the cost application untimely. The applicants countered that R. 150 RoP does not require finality and that the suspensive effect should be limited to the revocation portion of the decision. The Court rejected the applicants' restrictive interpretation, holding that the automatic suspensive effect applies to the decision in its entirety.
Bicara Therapeutics, Inc. v.The John Hopkins University et al.
Bicara Therapeutics has filed a PTAB Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all nine claims of Johns Hopkins' 2025 antibody‑fusion protein patent, alleging lack of written description, lack of enablement, and improper claim dependency.
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.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Europäisches Patentamt (EPA)
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
Dolby Laboratories has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 9,185,268, which covers methods for color correcting display content. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and requests the Board to institute the review.
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.
Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited v.The Indian Patent Office & Ors.
The Appellant, Rajdhani Petrochemicals Private Limited, filed an appeal against the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 concerning Indian Patent Application No. 202011037218. The current order addresses applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and refiling the said appeal.
Crocs Inc Usa v.M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors.
The plaintiff, Crocs Inc Usa, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against M/S Bata India Ltd for infringing its registered design. The suit was previously disposed of after the design registration (No. 197685) was cancelled by the Controller of Patents & Designs due to lack of novelty. The current application seeks costs against the plaintiff.
Manu Chaudhary v.Controller Of Patents And Design
Manu Chaudhary appealed the refusal of his patent application (IN 201711047431) by the Controller of Patents and Designs. The rejection was primarily based on the lack of National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) approval. The High Court found that since the appellant had applied for NBA approval, the Controller should have deferred the final order instead of refusing the patent application.
Hindustan Pesticides Manufacturer Association v.Dhanuka Agritech Ltd. & Anr.
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970, seeking to revoke or cancel Indian Patent IN420915, which relates to a Water Soluble Granular Insecticidal Composition. The court issued notices to the respondents and granted time for them to file their replies.
Alfa Laval Corporate Ab v.Clean Earth Energy Solution India Private Limited & Anr.
The Plaintiff filed an application seeking directions for the inspection of heat exchanger plates manufactured by the Defendant and taking on record relevant documents. The Court, relying on Section 115(1) of The Patents Act, appointed a Scientific Advisor to conduct an inspection and provide a detailed report comparing the impugned products with Patent No. 322307.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. Et al.
This case concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP1969839, brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of both actions under Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure, along with a 40% reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side, dismissing the request for a higher reimbursement percentage.
Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.
Alone Trust v.Union of India and others
This Public Interest Litigation addressed the persistent issue of improper use of the State Emblem of India in various fields, particularly trade and commerce. The court recognized that despite existing legislation like the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, misuse continued due to a lack of public awareness. Consequently, the High Court issued comprehensive directions to the State Government of Odisha to establish a Task Force, create SOPs, and develop an online reporting portal to ensure responsible usage.
Novartis Ag v.Eris Lifesciences Limited
The suit concerned alleged infringement of Patent No. 229051 by the Defendant regarding Valsartan and Sacubitril products. Since the subject patent IN'051 expired, the parties reached an amicable settlement which was recorded by the court.
UPL Limited v.Haryana Pesticides Manufactures Association & Anr.
The petitioner challenged an order rejecting its patent application for 'HERBICIDAL COMBINATIONS' based on pre-grant opposition grounds (lack of novelty/inventive steps). The core grievance was that the respondent authorities failed to provide the appellant with separate opportunities of hearing under Sections 14 and 25(1) of the Patents Act, leading to a violation of natural justice.
Yangtze Memory Technologie Co Ltd v.Union Of India & Anr.
The petitioner challenged the grant of its patent application, arguing that it was prevented from filing a necessary divisional application due to the timing of the grant. The petitioner claimed diligent efforts and intent to file the division before the grant. However, the court dismissed the petition, holding that the Petitioner attempted to file the divisional application after the grant date.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's revocation of a Saisie Order that had granted Centripetal's application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in connection with European patent EP 3 821 580. The Court held that Centripetal's amended requests submitted on appeal, which sought to broaden the scope of the original Saisie Order, were inadmissible because they were filed for the first time on appeal without justification and seriously prejudiced Palo Alto's ability to defend itself.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
In this legal proceeding before Paris (FR) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-02-04) under reference UPC-000096, Bostic, Inc. appeared in dispute with Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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)
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_530/2025 Ordonnance du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 04/02/2026 Concernant une demande de décision par défaut (R.158.5 et R. 355.1 RdP) DEMANDEUR KEEEX SAS 5 rue de Lissandre 13013 MARSEILLE - FR Représenté par Thibaud
Biocon Biologics Limited et al. v.--
Biocon has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate all 38 claims of Regeneron’s ‘036 anti‑VEGF eye‑treatment patent, alleging obviousness over prior art and lack of written description.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.--
Viant, Mediaocean and AppLovin have filed an IPR petition challenging claims 1‑34 of U.S. Patent 11,949,962, asserting that the combination of two prior publications makes the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti relativa a una istanza di svincolo della garanzia ai sensi della regola 352, paragrafo 2, del Regolamento di procedura emessa il 3 febbraio 2026 ISTANT
Medtronic, Inc. v.Moskowitz Family LLC
Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).
Jfe Steel Corporation v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Jfe Steel Corporation challenged an order from The Controller of Patents & Designs that refused its patent application (No. 115/MUMNP/2015). The petitioner argued that the rejection was based solely on non-compliance with Section 10(4) without examining novelty or inventive step. The High Court agreed, finding the rejection legally flawed.
Wacom Company Limited v.Cirel Systems Private Limited
Wacom Company Limited filed this Civil Petition seeking the appointment of a local commissioner to collect documents and testimony from Cirel Systems Private Limited. This evidence is required for pending patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, pursuant to the Hague Evidence Convention, 1970.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking leave to place additional public documents on record. These documents included various patents and ISO standards related to fasteners and coating methods, which were deemed highly relevant for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the Counter Claim.
Nord Lock Ab & Anr. v.Gala Precision Engineering Private Limited
The court considered an application filed by the counter claimant seeking permission to introduce additional public documents, which were identified as relevant prior arts pertaining to various patents. The Court allowed the submission of these documents, noting their relevance despite the late filing, subject to payment of costs.
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.