IP Cases — 2026
559 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 9 of 19 · 559 total
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson, proprietor of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance (the Dyson Airwrap), sought provisional measures against Dreame entities for alleged infringement by their hair dryer products. The Hamburg Local Division granted an injunction covering the Old Dreame Products but not the New Dreame Products. On cross-appeals, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dreame's appeal, allowed Dyson's appeal, and extended the provisional measures to the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, while staying proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH & Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Eurep GmbH v.Dyson Technology Limited
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a preliminary injunction obtained by Dyson Technology Limited against Dreame International, Eurep GmbH, Teqphone GmbH, and Dreame Technology AB for alleged infringement of European Patent 3 119 235 relating to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a third-state defendant (Dreame International) in relation to Spain and over an EU-based authorized representative (Eurep).
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 92 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 13 claims of Qomplx’s 2025 patent on graph‑based cyber‑attack detection, asserting obviousness over two earlier publications. The petition argues that each claim element is fully disclosed in Brezinski and Crabtree, and no evidence of non‑obviousness is offered.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition targeting claim 55 of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition asserts the claim is obvious over prior‑art hearing‑aid patents and a textbook, and asks the Board to institute review and cancel the claim.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private Limited v.M/S. Rohm Gmbh
The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH and others v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), proprietor of European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2 relating to wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders, sued Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities for infringement of the patent with their NightBalance device. Philips counterclaimed for revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, added matter, and insufficiency of disclosure. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) revoked the patent in its entirety as obvious over prior art JP H03-49748 A in combination with common general knowledge, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered ABM to pay costs.
Paragon 28, Inc. v.Treace Medical Concepts, Inc.
Paragon 28 seeks to invalidate Treace’s 12,349,941 bunion‑correction patent, alleging lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over prior surgical methods and devices. The petition requests cancellation of all 27 claims.
FanDuel, Inc. et al. v.WinView IP Holdings, LLC
FanDuel has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate WinView’s ‘349 patent covering synchronized live‑sports gaming, asserting that a 1998 European filing anticipates all challenged claims.
Toyota Motor Corporation et al. v.BUNKER HILL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
Toyota has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunker Hill’s U.S. Patent 10,549,648 covering hybrid‑electric vehicle propulsion. The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all 20 claims.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v.Smart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs & Ors.
The appellant challenged an order concerning the patentability/inventive step. The respondent filed an application to place additional public domain documents on record. The court allowed the admission of these documents but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the original Impugned Order regarding lack of inventive step was well-reasoned.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal concerning European patent EP 3 831 283. The Paris Central Division had dismissed Sibio's revocation action and maintained the patent as granted. On appeal, Sibio requested further exchanges of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP after Abbott's Statement of response referenced six auxiliary requests. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the proceedings from the first instance and did not require refiling on appeal.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns whether Defendant 1 (SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.) must pay a separate court fee for its counterclaim for revocation of European Patent No. EP 2 831 787. The court held that although Defendants 2–4 had already paid a single court fee for their joint counterclaim for revocation under Rule 370.7 RoP, Defendant 1's later-filed counterclaim constitutes a separate action requiring its own fee, even though the content is identical.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly moved to stay all case deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to allow filing of dismissal papers.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
USAA and Regions Bank have reached a settlement in principle and jointly filed a motion to stay all deadlines while finalizing the agreement. The motion seeks a 14‑day stay to file dismissal papers.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to have the PTAB institute an IPR against USAA’s 12,159,310 patent covering mobile check‑deposit methods, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a body of prior art.
Okta, Inc. et al. v.Thales DIS France SAS
Okta has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all ten claims of Thales' ’982 patent covering biometric hash‑based authentication. The petition alleges obviousness over a combination of Starner, Leskovec, Shaashua, and Bowman references.
Fifth Third Bank, National Association v.United Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
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.
AIC246 AG & Co. KG v.The Patent Office of India and Ors.
The petitioner challenged an order by the Controller of Patents rejecting its application for a fungicide combination. The core issue was that the Petitioner was not granted a mandatory hearing under Section 14 of the Patents Act before the rejection, despite the statutory framework requiring such a procedure. The Court found this omission arbitrary and contrary to the law.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a request for file inspection (Akteneinsicht) under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had initially granted file inspection, but Respondent Huawei Technologies sought Panel Review under Rule 333 RoP and requested suspension of the order. The Rapporteur then suspended and modified his original order under Rule 335 RoP, holding that file inspection would only be granted after the final conclusion of the Panel Review proceedings to prevent the review from being rendered moot.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al. v.Genzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
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.