IP Cases — 2026
299 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 8 of 10 · 299 total
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing patent litigation when parties reach an out-of-court settlement. IMI Hydronic Engineering sought to revoke EP3812870, while Belparts counterclaimed for infringement. The Court granted permission for both actions to be withdrawn, effectively closing the proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that if no final decision has been rendered and all parties agree on the withdrawal without objection, the court will permit the case closure under Rule 265.1 RoP.
Sinopsee Therapeutics v.The Controller Of Patents
Sinopsee Therapeutics filed an appeal challenging the Controller of Patents' order rejecting its Indian Patent application no. 202117059910. The court first allowed the application for condonation of a 13-day delay in filing the appeal, and subsequently issued notice to the respondent.
Pharma Cinq, Llc v.The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks
Pharma Cinq, Llc filed an appeal challenging an earlier order passed by the Controller of Patents concerning Indian Patent Application no. 202017028792. The court also addressed several interlocutory applications related to filing procedures.
Wirtgen Gmbh v.Controller General Of Patents, Designs and Trademarks and Ors
Wirtgen Gmbh appealed a rejection order issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The rejection was based on lack of inventive step and insufficient claim definition under the Patents Act. The High Court found that the impugned order suffered from analytical and procedural deficiencies.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning procedural fairness in the UPC, the Court of Appeal addressed an application for security for costs. The court held that if a claimant holds comprehensive litigation insurance with an anti-avoidance endorsement (AAE) from an EU insurer, this coverage is sufficient to mitigate the risk of non-recoverable legal costs. This decision provides substantial relief to SMEs and claimants by establishing that financial solvency can be demonstrated through robust insurance rather than solely relying on bank guarantees.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by the respondent (Huawei) seeking to suspend an earlier order concerning document access granted by the rapporteur. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, utilizing Rule 335 VerfO to prevent the immediate fulfillment of the access request from undermining the subsequent Panel Review. This highlights the UPC's commitment to ensuring that procedural steps do not prematurely conclude a case before the full judicial review process is complete.
Zydus Lifesciences Limited v.E. R. Squibb And Sons, Llc
Zydus Lifesciences appealed an injunction restraining it from selling its anti-cancer drug ZRC 3276, which was allegedly infringing E. R. Squibb's patent (5C4). The court considered the conflict between protecting IP rights and ensuring access to life-saving medication. Ultimately, the court modified the order by vacating the injunction but requiring Zydus to file audited accounts of sales until the patent expires.
Geron Corporation v.The Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Geron Corporation appealed the Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its application concerning telomerase inhibitors. The core dispute was whether the claimed 'in vitro screening method' was, in substance, a diagnostic process that falls under Section 3(i) of the Patents Act. The Court ultimately held that despite being drafted as a screening method, the claims covered a diagnostic process essential to medical decision-making and were therefore not patentable.
Nec Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents And Designs
The appeals challenged the rejection of designs related to GUIs in electronic devices. The appellants argued that strict interpretations by the Controller regarding whether GUIs constitute an 'article' or possess permanence were flawed. The Court held that the respondent authorities failed to apply correct legal tests, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding all matters for fresh consideration.
Nippon Steel Corporation v.The Controller Of Patents
Nippon Steel Corporation filed an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging an order passed by The Controller of Patents on November 7, 2025. The court accepted notice and directed both parties to file replies and complete pleadings before listing the matter for final hearing.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
Mr. Anil Gopalji Thacker v.Mr. Davda Jaydeepkumar Jagdishchandra
The appellant (plaintiff) filed a Trademark Suit against the respondent (defendant) alleging infringement by using the similar trade name 'Kshetrapal Construction'. The appeal challenged the trial court's order rejecting the application for an interim injunction. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish secondary meaning and had suppressed material facts.
Bhupesh Sevantilal Shah v.Lyka Bdr International Limited
The applicant filed an Interim Application in aid of Execution Application seeking the execution of an award dated November 15, 2023. The court granted directions requiring the respondent to disclose all particulars of their assets, including intellectual property rights (patents, copyrights, trademarks), within four weeks.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
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.
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.
Emd Millipore Corporation v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
Emd Millipore Corporation appealed the Assistant Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a method of integrity testing a liquid sterilizing grade filter due to lack of inventive step. The court allowed the amendment sought by the appellant and partially set aside the refusal order, remanding the matter back to the Respondent for fresh examination.
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v.Lupin Limited
Chugai Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed suit against Lupin Limited regarding the public display of a specific product by the defendant. The court accepted that if the defendants modify their website to include an asterisk stating 'for the purposes of research under Section 107A of the Patents Act, 1970', it would suffice to address the plaintiff's grievance.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.
Pps International v.Subhajit Goswami And Another
The petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead expert evidence regarding the potential revocation of an impugned patent under Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court allowed the application, permitting the Petitioner to file the necessary evidence affidavit.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office (EPO)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict interpretation of unitary patent effect under Regulation 1257/2012. Papst Licensing challenged the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect, arguing that historical context and proportionality should allow registration despite the omission of Malta in the original designation. The court firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing a literal reading of Article 3(1). This ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of procedural requirements when seeking unitary protection.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case, Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. for infringement and simultaneously filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 705 415 B1, which covers specialized food packaging. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Beyond the substantive outcome, the decision highlighted critical procedural requirements within the UPC system, particularly concerning the timely presentation of evidence and arguments.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
In a complex international patent dispute involving Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC, the UPC Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 1 875 683. The court ruled that the Claimant failed to conclusively substantiate its claims during the oral hearing, despite arguments regarding evidence production under Rule 190 RoP. This decision highlights the high burden of proof required in UPC proceedings, particularly when asserting complex technical infringement.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. v.Amgen, Inc
This decision from the UPC Court of Appeal concerns procedural matters, specifically the withdrawal of applications for rehearing in a complex dispute involving Sanofi and Amgen over patent EP 3 666 797. Following earlier proceedings where the Central Division had revoked the patent, both parties engaged in appeals and subsequent requests for rehearing. Ultimately, the Court permitted the withdrawal of these procedural actions upon consent from all involved parties. This case highlights how UPC courts manage complex litigation pathways when parties agree to terminate specific stages of the legal process.
Steigerwald Arzneimittlewerk Gmbh v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Appellant challenged the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent application (No. 1285/DEL/2009) on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The invention relates to a method for producing a plant-based medicament, Iberogast, which requires a specific mixing sequence for stable quality. The High Court found infirmities in the Controller's order regarding the reasoning under Sections 3(d) and 3(e), setting aside the Impugned Order and remanding the matter.
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.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V., Solvest Participatie V B.V., Solvest Participatie VI B.V., Solvest Participatie VII B.V., Solvink B.V., De Kleine Beuk B.V., Hemtech d.o.o.
This procedural order addressed the defendants' application for a panel review against the rejection of their preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction and competence. The Court upheld the initial finding that Honeywell had sufficiently asserted infringement within Germany to maintain the case before the Mannheim Local Division. While the defendants argued for narrow interpretation of UPC jurisdiction, the court clarified that the merits of the infringement claim would be decided later, allowing the case to proceed.
Natco Pharma Limit v.Novo Nordisk A/S And Ors.
The petitioner, Natco Pharma Limit, filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent No. 262697 before the Delhi High Court. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file replies within six weeks.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.
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.