IP Cases — 2026
1,474 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 7 of 50 · 1,474 total
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the appeal by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG against the dismissal of its patent infringement claim and the appeal by Vibrantz GmbH against the partial nullity of EP 3 215 288. The court upheld the Local Division Munich's finding that Vibrantz's use of the patented metal sintering preparation in Germany was lawful under a prior use right, and therefore could not establish a threat of infringement in France, Italy, and Romania. The court also confirmed the partial revocation of the French, Italian, and Romanian parts of the patent based on lack of inventive step.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 3 841 735 held by In(k)control BV. Following a Rule 296.3 RoP order on September 3, 2026, defendant Esko filed a request for leave of appeal and extension of time, which was subsequently withdrawn after the parties reached a joint agreement on an adjusted briefing schedule. The court accepted the joint request, extending Esko's deadline for the Statement of Defence to November 2, 2026, and In(k)control's reply deadline to February 2, 2027, while acknowledging that this would exceed the one-year target for proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both appeals in a patent infringement and revocation dispute concerning EP 3 215 288, a metal sintering preparation patent. The court upheld the Local Chamber Munich's decision that the infringement action was entirely dismissed and that the patent was partially revoked in France, Italy, and Romania. The court found that the defendant's prior use rights in Germany precluded a threat of infringement, and that no concrete infringing acts or preparatory acts existed for France, Italy, and Romania.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is an order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an application by Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV for security for costs to be provided by In(k)control BV under R. 158 RoP in infringement proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 841 735. The court found that the conditions for requiring security were met given In(k)control's precarious financial position, including negative equity, assets consisting primarily of the patent in suit, and doubts about continuity. Using its discretionary power, the court set the security at €75,000, rejecting both Esko's primary request of €400,000 and In(k)control's offer of €19,000.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717, with Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd as intervenor. The order, issued following the second interim hearing of September 11, 2026, addresses case management matters including the confirmation of the oral hearing date of February 2, 2027, the admission of amended pleadings reflecting the patent's limitation before the EPO, the partial rejection of Yunex's submissions as untimely, and the allocation of oral argument time. The parallel nullity action before the Central Chamber Paris had been dismissed on June 25, 2026, and the patent's limited version was published on April 8, 2026.
DivX, LLC v.Netflix Services Germany GmbH et al.
DivX, LLC sued multiple Netflix entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Munich for indirect infringement of European Patent with Unitary Effect EP 4 213 033, directed to a video distribution system with progressive playback. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court maintained the patent in amended form based on the plaintiff's auxiliary request, found indirect infringement of claim 1, and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting obligations, and a finding of liability for damages, while ordering the defendants to bear the costs of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
ToolGen, Inc. v.Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated & Lonza Netherlands B.V.
ToolGen, Inc. initiated infringement proceedings in the UPC Local Division The Hague against Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Lonza Netherlands, alleging that the product Casgevy.13 infringes its European patent EP 4 397 760 relating to CRISPR compositions. The defendants filed two applications: a Rule 190 application seeking production of documents obtained through disclosure in parallel UK proceedings, and a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of ToolGen's claims for injunctive and corrective relief as manifestly bound to fail. The judge-rapporteur dismissed both applications, holding that the defendants could not circumvent UK disclosure restrictions via a UPC order and that the Rule 361 application was not appropriate for the fact-intensive assessment required.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI Tech GmbH, MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC sought provisional measures from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich against four MGI/BGI respondents for alleged infringement of four European patents through the marketing and sale of 'Cyclone Devices' (sequencers and flow cells). The court separated the proceedings, dismissing the application against Respondents 2-4 for lack of jurisdiction and evidence, but granted extensive provisional measures against MGI Tech GmbH, including injunctive relief, delivery-up orders, information orders, and penalty payments in respect of EP 2 422 198 B1 and EP 2 715 343 B1.
Abbott GmbH & Anr. v.Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited
The plaintiffs, Abbott GmbH & Anr., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining Dr Reddy's Laboratories Limited from using the marks COMIFFIN/COMIFFIN PLUS, which were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered CREMAFFIN marks. During the pendency of the suit, the parties amicably settled their disputes, with the defendant agreeing to cease use of the impugned marks and withdraw its trademark application. The court decreed the suit in terms of the settlement and granted the plaintiffs a refund of court fees.
Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
This intra-court appeal (LPA 688/2026) was filed by Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. against the decision of a Single Judge who had set aside the rejection of its trademark application for 'OFFER' in Class 33 and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The appellant contended that the Single Judge erred in not directing publication under Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the application had not reached the stage of acceptance and that the statutory authorities were better equipped to examine the application at the initial stage.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd v.Curewell Drugs And Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. & Anr.
This order of the Delhi High Court dealt with multiple interlocutory applications in a trademark dispute between Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Curewell Drugs and Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd. concerning the marks REVITAL and BEVITAL. The court allowed Sun Pharma to place additional documents on record to substantiate its claim of prior use of the trademark REVITAL since 1988, noting that no new case was being set up. The application for appointment of Local Commissioners was not pressed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, Ericsson withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the 50% default rate, citing the exceptional procedural burden caused by parallel filings across UPC divisions.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH and others
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants and applied to withdraw the action with consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declined to issue a cost decision, set the value in dispute, and reduced the standard reimbursement rate of court fees from 50% to 40% based on exceptional circumstances.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 397 009 against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants that also covered claims against Adyen, and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and set the reimbursement rate of court fees at 40% rather than the standard 50%, resulting in a reimbursement of EUR 16,440.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the UPC Local Division Brussels following an interim conference in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. The court set the total value of the proceedings at €2.5 million (€1 million for the infringement action and €1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation). The order also addressed procedural arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, including contingencies related to BARCO's pending appeal against a prior procedural order dated 17 August 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed patent infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris Seat). Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, the Claimant withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the requested 60%, citing exceptional circumstances due to the Claimant's procedural behaviour and the Court's increased workload.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 506 479 against multiple defendants including Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with most defendants and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at EUR 3,000,000, and reduced the standard court fee reimbursement rate from 50% to 40% due to exceptional circumstances, ordering reimbursement of EUR 16,440 to the claimant.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a Procedural Order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, relating to an infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) brought by Barco NV against Yealink entities and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim conference, including the valuation of the case, recoverable costs, the timeframe for the oral hearing, and contingencies arising from Barco's pending appeal of a prior procedural order concerning auxiliary request 6.
UPL Mauritius Limited & Anr. v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
This is an appeal filed by UPL Mauritius Limited and another appellant before the Delhi High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the order dated 15.05.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which refused to grant a patent on Indian Patent Application No. 202211035759. The court allowed the exemption application and issued notice to the Respondent, with the matter adjourned to 03.12.2026.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a rectification order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) concerning a decision dated 24 August 2026 in proceedings between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and HMD Global Oy regarding EP 2 609 590. The Court identified an obvious slip in item G of the operative part, which had stated the Claimant's request rather than the Court's actual decision on enforcement security. Both parties agreed to the proposed rectification, and the Defendant's additional suggestion to explicitly include 'definitive removal from the distribution channels' in the recall and destruction provision was also consented to by the Claimant.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a clarification order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, concerning European Patent EP 2 380 167. The court rectified an obvious slip in the operative part of its decision dated 24 August 2026, clarifying the provision of security required for enforcement of the orders. The Defendant suggested the clarification, and the Claimant consented to it.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the UPC Local Division The Hague, alleging infringement of European Patent EP4108769 concerning methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration. Moderna filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and territories, a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC states, and a confidentiality application. The Court deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, dismissed the Rule 361 application, and provisionally granted the confidentiality application while inviting CureVac to respond.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et al.
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in The Hague addresses an evidentiary dispute in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning EP2590626 B1. The panel revoked an earlier order by the judge-rapporteur that had rejected GSK's New ATEM reports (Cryo-TEM data with stained/dyed RNA of the accused products) as late-filed evidence. The panel found that during the oral hearing, the location of mRNA within particles and the nature of the aqueous core became central to the infringement discussion, making the previously rejected evidence material to the case.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request under Rule 361 RoP filed by Alpinestars and others seeking to declare Dainese's appeal inadmissible on the ground that court fees were paid after the expiry of the appeal deadline. The Court held that the Statement of appeal was lodged within the two-month time limit and that the bank transfer order for the court fees was given within the 14-day period following the Registry's invitation, rendering both the appeal and the payment timely. The requests for interim awards of costs were also rejected as the order was not final.
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
An Original Petition was filed by M/s.K.R.Bakes Pvt.Ltd. before the Madras High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 (Class 30) granted in the name of the first respondent. The matter was listed under the caption 'memo of compromise,' and both parties submitted that they had arrived at an amicable settlement. The Court recorded the joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026 and disposed of the petition, with no order as to costs.
Surya Roshni Limited v.Maddi Ramiah Kutati (Trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables)
Surya Roshni Limited, a leading manufacturer of steel, lighting, and electrical goods marketed under the well-known trademark 'SURYA', filed a commercial suit against Maddi Ramiah Kutati (trading as Safety Power Wires & Cables) for using the deceptively similar mark 'SURYA CAB' for electrical wires and cables. The court found that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark and copyright, engaged in passing off, and was not an innocent user. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff with a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 15,00,000/- with 9% per annum interest, delivery-up of infringing goods and materials, and costs of the suit.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. et al.
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple defendants, including Transsion, Tecno, Infinix, and others, concerning European patent EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with Transsion and applied to withdraw the infringement action. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, declined to issue a cost order, and ordered reimbursement of 35% of the court fees (12,950 EUR) based on the exceptional circumstances of the case.
BYD Company Ltd & Others v.BMS Innovations, LLC
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a Declaration of Non-Infringement (DNI) action filed by BYD entities against BMS Innovations, LLC, the proprietor of European Patent EP2937706. BMSI sought to have BYD's DNI action dismissed as inadmissible under Rules 61(1), 361, and 362 RoP, arguing that BYD failed to provide full particulars of the acts in question before filing. The Court rejected BMSI's requests in their entirety, finding that BYD's pre-filing letter of 18 May 2026 contained sufficient information and that the DNI action was not manifestly inadmissible or lacking foundation in law.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd. & Others
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 3 960 072 B1 relating to compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, sought provisional measures from the UPC Milan Local Division against five related entities (Shenzhen SiSensing, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology, Sibio PTE, and Shanghai International Holding) for their planned commercialization of the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system. The Court granted the provisional injunction, prohibiting the respondents from infringing the patent in the relevant Contracting Member States, ordered disclosure of distribution channels, imposed capped penalty payments for non-compliance, and awarded Abbott an interim cost award of 120,000 EUR.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence under Rule 197.3 RoP in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 4 285 308 B8 ('Securely Registering a Sequence of Transactions'). The applicant fiskaly GmbH sought evidence preservation against SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. The court largely upheld the original April 27, 2026 order, finding plausible grounds for suspected infringement, and granted a supplementary auxiliary request requiring the expert to transport secured materials to the court's office if a main action is filed.
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.