IP Cases — 2026
1,011 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 34 · 1,011 total
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Anr. v.Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited
This is a patent infringement suit (COMS No.3 of 2022) before the Himachal Pradesh High Court, where Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and another plaintiff allege that Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited infringed their patent rights under Indian Patent No. 243301. The court framed four issues for trial, including questions of infringement, entitlement to permanent injunction and damages, and the validity/revocability of the patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act. The matter was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial) for fixing a date for recording evidence.
Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt Ltd v.PCMX Hygiene Products Pvt Ltd and Anr
This is an order sheet from the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court in a matter relating to a trade mark dispute. The court, on the prayer of the review applicant, peremptorily extended the time to file a supplementary affidavit till 17th August, 2026, and granted liberty to the respondents to file a rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit by 28th August, 2026. The matter was directed to appear in the monthly list of September, 2026.
Julius Blum GmbH, (Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte GmbH & Co KG) v.Arturo Salice S.p.A., Via Provinciale Novedratese, 10, 22060 , Novedrate Como), IT
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438 relating to a furniture hinge. Julius Blum GmbH (Austria) sued Arturo Salice S.p.A. (Italy) for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. Following an interim hearing held on July 31, 2026, the presiding judge addressed procedural matters including the value in dispute, settlement possibilities, cost arrangements, expert and witness requirements, interpretation issues, and further written submissions, confirming the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.
penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def v.Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-08-03) under reference UPC_EE030B5C43, penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def appeared in dispute with Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in appeals arising from proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg regarding EP 2 642 632. The Court of Appeal granted Nera's requests to disregard Xiaomi's late-filed expert opinion (Exhibit FBD-T38) and book excerpt (Exhibit FBD-T39), as well as Xiaomi's inventive step arguments based on D1, D2, and D4 that were raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd & Anr
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) filed a patent infringement suit against Gionee Communication Equipment Co Ltd and another seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, importing, selling, or advertising mobile devices incorporating AMR, 3G, and EDGE technologies covered by Ericsson's suit patents. During the pendency of the suit, Ericsson and Defendant No. 2 amicably resolved their disputes and executed a Settlement Agreement dated 01.12.2025. The Delhi High Court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, allowed withdrawal of a connected commercial complaint, and granted the plaintiff a refund of court fees under the Court Fees Act, 1870.
Enviro Ambient Corporation v.Assistant Controller of Patents
Enviro Ambient Corporation appealed against the rejection of its Indian Patent Application No. IN201917020705 for a 'Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method' by the Assistant Controller of Patents. The Patent Controller had rejected the application on grounds of lack of novelty under Section 2(1)(j) and lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order as non-speaking and unreasoned, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with directions to decide within three months.
Glaxo Group Limited v.Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and Anr.
Glaxo Group Limited, the proprietor of the trademark ZENTEL, sued Visuteq Lifesciences Private Limited and another party for trademark infringement and passing off arising from the Defendant's use of the mark ZENTEQ GEL. During the proceedings, the parties amicably resolved their disputes and recorded settlement terms before the Delhi High Court. The Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff against Defendant No. 1 in terms of the settlement, with the Plaintiff foregoing its claims for damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and legal costs.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, US v.1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra v.KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-30) under reference UPC_AEFD96D0F6, BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra appeared in dispute with KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH, and Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP2047617, owned by IMPRENDITORE PTY LIMITED, brought by Qord IP Protection LLC against SmartThings, Inc. and three Samsung entities. The parties agreed that Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) would voluntarily appear and be represented by Dr. Ebersohl, subject to alignment of the deadlines for the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur confirmed the agreed alignment of deadlines to 26 October 2026 for all defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé in an infringement action brought by the Merz entities before the UPC Paris Local Division regarding French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 (based on EP 2 377 536). Viatris sought primarily a stay and for the court to decline jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, arguing lis pendens under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and alternatively a stay under Article 30 for related actions. Merz countered that the UPC was first seised and has exclusive jurisdiction over the infringement claim, and that the criteria for related actions under Article 30 were not met.
Sun Patent Trust, Sabine Agé v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This is an order from the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the total value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), schedules oral hearings for 9-11 September 2026, and identifies the main legal points to be argued. The case involves complex issues of claim construction regarding DRX Active Time features, validity challenges based on prior art documents, alleged infringement by 4G+ compatible Vivo devices, and FRAND-related matters including the admissibility of certain claims and anti-trust law defences.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Delhi High Court disposed of a patent infringement suit (CS(COMM) 410/2020) filed by Astrazeneca AB & Anr against Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited, based on a joint application recording an amicable settlement between the parties. The suit concerned alleged infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. The court decreed the suit in terms of the Settlement Agreement, which formed part of the decree, and directed refund of the entire court fees to the Plaintiffs.
AstraZeneca AB & Anr. v.USV Private Limited
This was a patent infringement suit filed by Astrazeneca AB and another plaintiff against USV Private Limited seeking a permanent injunction restraining infringement of Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into a Settlement Agreement. The court allowed the joint application, decreed the suit in terms of the settlement, and directed the registry to draw up the decree sheet.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a single Judge's order that had set aside the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of Kangaro Industries' request for extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings. V-Guard Industries had applied for registration of the mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16, which Kangaro Industries opposed. The Division Bench held that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory, that no extension of time is provided under the 2017 Rules unlike the 2002 Rules, and consequently the opposition stood deemed abandoned. The appeal was allowed and the single Judge's order was set aside.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland SARL & Anr.
The petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of the trademark ULTIME REPAIR registered in favour of Respondent No. 1 in Class 03 under registration No. 5918380. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026, and the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC to take the settlement on record and direct removal of the trademark entry. The Delhi High Court allowed the application, took the settlement on record, and directed Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
Mex Switchgears Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The applicant, Mex Switchgears Private Limited, filed an application to condone a delay of 122 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.801379 to Trademark Application No.1763867 in Class 09. The respondent opposed the application. The Madras High Court, after considering the averments in the affidavit and being satisfied with the reasons stated, allowed the application and condoned the delay.
CA, Inc., 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, California 95131 v.Respondent
This case concerns a review request filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Munich regarding Annex B5 in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 955 151. CA argued that Rule 262A.3 of the Rules of Procedure was not satisfied because the defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) had only submitted a partial extract of the underlying document, and only that extract was available unredacted. The court rejected the review request, holding that an extract from a larger document can qualify as an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3, and that the rule does not entitle the affected party to view the entire underlying document. The Rapporteur's order of 22 June 2026 was maintained, and leave to appeal was not granted.
1) Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.1) Oleading B.V., 518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province
This order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) addressed a dispute regarding the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action concerning EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo requested that its counsel be permitted to grant access to certain license materials to additional persons, while KPN objected to expanding the club from five to seven natural persons. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the confidentiality club, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf proceedings' regime, and granted limited access to two named individuals under the existing confidentiality regime.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata
In this legal proceeding before LISBON LOCAL DIVISION (decision issued on 2026-07-29) under reference UPC_32C65DC0E1, TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON appeared in dispute with ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Asustek Computer Inc & Anr. v.Nokia Technologies Oy & Anr.
The Delhi High Court disposed of three connected revocation petitions filed by Asustek Computer Inc against Nokia Technologies Oy, pertaining to Indian Patent Nos. 381056, 320467, and 356246. The petitions were withdrawn by Asustek following the parties' entry into a Patent License Agreement adjustable through arbitration to settle their pending disputes. The court allowed withdrawal with liberty to reinstitute revocation or other legal proceedings in respect of the subject patents if required.
Novartis AG & Anr. v.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited
Novartis AG and another plaintiff filed a suit against Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in pharmaceutical products containing the patented compound Dabrafenib, allegedly infringing Indian Patent No. 275655 (IN'655). The defendant, through its counsel, gave an undertaking to the court not to commercially manufacture or launch any product containing Dabrafenib during the validity of the patent, while reserving its rights under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970 for research purposes. The court accepted the undertaking, decreed the suit in terms of the undertaking, and directed the defendant to file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited v.Wella International Operations Switzerland Sarl & Anr.
The Petitioner, Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to place on record a Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2026 executed with Respondent No. 1, and to direct Respondent No. 2 to remove the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' (Registration No. 6343131 in Class 03) from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court found the settlement terms to be lawful and allowed the application. Consequently, the petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was allowed, and the registration of the trademark 'ULTIME SMOOTH' in favour of Respondent No. 1 was cancelled, with Respondent No. 2 directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
1- Bystronic Laser AG, 2- Bystronic Austria GmbH v.ASTES4 SA, By a statement of claim filed on 2 April 2026, ASTES4 SA bro
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendants (Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., and Isochronic AG) to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in an infringement action brought by ASTES4 SA based on European Patent EP2164678. The President of the Court of First Instance held that the application was admissible, finding that Article 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the Statement of Defence, and therefore R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to permit earlier filing. On the merits, after balancing the interests of both parties, the President granted the application, ordering that English—the language in which the patent was granted—be used as the language of the proceedings.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V., Dr. R. Raggers (AOMB)
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by CJ CheilJedang Corporation regarding European Patent EP3508580 against multiple defendants, including Eppen Netherlands B.V., three Chinese biotech companies, and Oostvogels Logistics B.V. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence until November 2026 and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's test results on previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and also addressed the separate question of access to seized technical documentation, suggesting a two-step process involving an independent technical expert or bailiff.
Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany v.Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-28) under reference UPC_79AAF0ABDE, Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany appeared in dispute with Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.