IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 5 of 19 · 559 total
Nec Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Nec Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal of its patent application concerning a video coding device and method. The refusal was based on the lack of inventive step in light of existing prior art disclosures. The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the invention was rendered obvious by D1 to D3.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. for alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation, particularly transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation. The Court of Appeal addressed key issues including the permissibility of asserting a patent in a non-registered claim form in interim proceedings, the admissibility of new auxiliary requests under R. 222 RoP, and the determination of intended use under Art. 26 EPGÜ. The appeal was dismissed, and ONWARD Medical was ordered to pay provisional costs of EUR 56,000 to Niche Biomedical.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
Google LLC v.--
Google and Samsung successfully challenged 27 claims of Headwater's ’733 patent, with the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable as obvious over MMS standards and known encryption technology.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
Google LLC v.--
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Headwater Research’s ’564 patent covering a mobile device with secure MMS messaging. The petition relies on obviousness arguments combining TS‑23.140, Rakic and several other references.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco Systems has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 8,780,887, asserting that its ten claims are obvious over the Pankratov prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.--
Cisco has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,020,961, asserting that all 13 claims are obvious over the Ye reference. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of the claims.
Scipharm Sarl v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs and Anr
Scipharm Sarl appealed the rejection of its patent application for a method enhancing engraftment of haematopoietic stem cells. The High Court allowed the appeal, permitting the appellant to amend the claims by deleting claim no.1 and retaining claims 2 to 5, and remanded the matter back to the Controller's office for further consideration.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent, but the parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement and both applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the counterclaim for infringement, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register, with no cost decision issued.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions, and the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Krisp Technologies, Inc. v.Sanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimants withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, having reached an out-of-court settlement whereby each party bears its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) to the claimants.
Par Health, Inc. v.InfoRLife, S.A.
Par Health petitions the PTAB to institute a post‑grant review of U.S. Patent 12,370,153 covering ready‑to‑use ketamine infusion formulations. The petition asserts anticipation by a Biomed data sheet and obviousness over Biomed combined with standard pharmaceutical references and commercial infusion bag literature.
Bardana Super Hi-Tech Agro Tonic Pvt v.Amcons Ipl (Agro Industrial Expansion) Pvt Ltd and Others
The plaintiff filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunctions against the defendants for dishonestly adopting and using the impugned mark "SUPER AGRO-TECH" along with deceptively similar packaging and trade dress in relation to agricultural goods. The applicant sought dispensation of pre-institution mediation, arguing that urgent interim relief was necessary due to immediate market confusion and injury.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
ALPINA Coffee Systems appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding infringement of EP 3 398 487 and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that ALPINA failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was evidently erroneous, that enforcement would render the appeal moot, or that fundamental procedural rights were violated, and that its arguments regarding potential double modification of the accused embodiment due to parallel proceedings were too vague and speculative.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., and Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International v.Fives ECL
REEL International filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 1 740 740 owned by Fives ECL before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court. Fives ECL raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the court decline jurisdiction based on REEL International's alleged lack of standing (intérêt à agir) and the res judicata effect of German court decisions on the German part of the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objection, holding that lack of standing and res judicata are not among the exhaustive list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Procedural Order
Altria Client Services LLC v.--
Altria Client Services LLC petitions the PTAB to cancel a design patent for a dog‑toy set that mimics Marlboro cigarette packaging, citing a 1959 Life Magazine ad and a 1976 trademark registration as prior art.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. v.Basil Drugs And Pharmaceuticals Private Limited
The plaintiffs, Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr., filed a commercial suit alleging infringement of their patent (IN 294424) related to the compound Alectinib. The court addressed several interlocutory applications and subsequently registered the plaint as a suit, while also granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing or dealing in infringing products.
Gsp Crop Science Private Limited v.Fmc Agro Singapore Pte Ltd & Ors.
The court addressed arguments regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The order noted that a Division Bench had held that such a petition remains maintainable even after patent expiry or when an invalidity defence is raised in suit.
Msn Laboratories Pvt. Ltd v.The Controller Of Patents & Anr.
The petitioner sought orders regarding the maintainability and survival of a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court noted that the issue had been addressed by a Division Bench judgment in another appeal (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH vs. The Controller of Patents & Anr).
Novo Nordisk A/S & Anr v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
Novo Nordisk filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories concerning their patented composition involving semaglutide. The court heard arguments, noted affidavits from both sides, and allowed procedural applications while directing the parties to proceed with pleadings.
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produkcie S.A., Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Bosch defendants for revision of an earlier order rejecting their preliminary objections to the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court addressed the two conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for establishing jurisdiction over multiple defendants, holding that the commercial link requirement applies between all defendants collectively and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition refers to infringement of the same patent rather than identity of the infringing products. The panel rejected the revision request, confirmed the Paris Local Division's jurisdiction, and granted leave to appeal.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC v.Halozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck challenges Halozyme’s PH20 enzyme patent, asserting that a 2013 publication anticipates all 18 claims and that the specification lacks written description and enablement. The petition seeks inter partes review under § 102 and § 112(a).
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.