Recently, agricultural machinery manufacturer John Deere has faced three lawsuits in Germany alleging infringement of 4G cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs). This marks the first time that cellular SEP enforcement actions have targeted an agricultural machinery manufacturer. The three lawsuits were filed by two different plaintiffs: Acer filed one lawsuit in the Mannheim Regional Court, case number 2 O 87/26; Beijing Jing Shi Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd. filed two lawsuits in the First Regional Court of Munich, with case numbers 7 O 7293/26 and 7 O 7713/26, respectively.

On August 13, 2026, the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court issued a 67-page set of FRAND guidelines, systematically summarizing the reasoning behind four significant SEP rulings heard by the chamber this year: Wilus v. ASUS, Nokia v. ASUS, Broadcom v. Renault, and ZTE v. Samsung.

The patent at issue in this case is EP 3 030 943, which primarily relates to a technical solution for robotic vacuum cleaners to perform cleaning tasks based on room information. The patent was acquired by the plaintiff, PAPST, in 2024 from the German company RoTrade Asset Management GmbH.

In this ruling, Micron requested that access to Z01M information be strictly limited to Yangtze Memory Technologies’ external counsel and internal assistants, citing two reasons. First, Yangtze Memory Technologies had previously agreed to have external counsel independently evaluate technical information regarding another Micron chip, the Y52P, effectively waiving its right to direct access to such information; therefore, its current request for internal personnel to access Z01M details constitutes a contradiction; Second, Yangtze Memory has been placed on the U.S. export control “Entity List,” and disclosing Z01M technical information to it may require a license from the U.S. government. Since license reviews follow a “presumption of denial” principle, Micron argued that it is “legally prohibited from disclosing” such information.

Recently, Philips filed a lawsuit with the Munich Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), alleging that Shenzhen Baseus Technology Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies have infringed on its EP2867997 patent. Baseus Technology has become the third Chinese charging accessories company that Philips has sued at the UPC based on this patent.

To help Chinese companies and legal professionals better understand the PMAC’s institutional framework, key features of its rules and practical application, IP Economy conducted an exclusive interview with the PMAC. The discussion examines the key changes introduced in the final rules, the Centre’s jurisdiction, its procedures from initiation to resolution, the resolution of FRAND disputes concerning standard?essential patents, and how Chinese companies can make effective use of the PMAC. It also provides practical insights for Chinese companies navigating patent litigation in Europe and strengthening cross?border patent risk management frameworks.

On August 13, 2026, the High Court of Justice in London, UK, issued a ruling in the copyright infringement case of Shein v. Temu, dismissing Shein’s allegations that Temu had infringed its copyrights on an “industrial scale” and upholding some of Temu’s counterclaims.

On August 10, 2026, the Hamburg Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) granted the application filed by the German company Cybex and issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Dutch company NUNA International B.V. and its affiliate Allison GmbH to cease sales of the relevant child safety seat combination products in all 18 member states.

On August 10, 2026, the Hague Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a judgment in the patent infringement and counterclaim for invalidity case brought by Maxell Ltd. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and others. The court ruled that European Patent EP 2 061 230 (EP230), held by Maxell, was invalid and dismissed Maxell’s infringement claims against Samsung’s Galaxy series of smartphones and tablets.

Recently, the ITC issued its final determination in the Section 337 investigation concerning certain LCD glass substrates, confirming that relevant products from companies including Rainbow Co., Ltd., Xianyang Rainbow Optoelectronics, and TCL Huaxing Optoelectronics infringed on intellectual property rights, and issued a limited exclusion order and an injunction.