Global IP Cases Directory
Displaying cases 801–900 of 15,261 total decisions across India, European UPC, and US PTAB.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
A procedural order issued in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3852468. Following an online case management meeting, the Judge-Rapporteur rescheduled the oral hearing dates previously set in January 2026 and ordered the parties to file consolidated summary submissions to streamline the proceedings.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Google Ireland Limited et. al.
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 4 184 443 B1. The court found the Claimant's estimated value of the infringement action (2,000,000 euros) manifestly too low given that the alleged infringement concerned the Defendants' mobile or computing devices across all 18 UPC Contracting Member States, and provisionally set the value at 4,000,000 euros. Both parties raised no objections, and the Claimant was ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee of 17,200 euros.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo-related entities concerning European Patent No. EP3407524. Following an online case management meeting on 21 May 2026, the Judge-Rapporteur amended the previously scheduled oral hearing dates and ordered the parties' representatives to file a summary submission of up to 50 pages by 21 July 2026. The order does not address the substantive merits of the infringement dispute.
Dabur India Limited v.Emami Limited
The Delhi High Court has upheld an injunction against Dabur India Limited's product 'COOL KING THANDA TAEL' due to its deceptively similar trade dress to Emami Limited's Navratna Oil. The court found that the trade dress of Dabur's product was likely to mislead consumers and constitute passing off. The appeal by Dabur India Limited was dismissed, and the pending application was also dismissed. The court's findings are prima facie and subject to the final decision in the suit post-trial.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Withdrawal (RoP265)
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Infringement Action
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.. Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application RoP262A
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S. concerning European Patent EP 2 184 891 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, and the court issued an order permitting the withdrawal, terminating the proceedings, and directing a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France et al.
Procedural order of the UPC Local Division Paris in proceedings concerning EP 3 689 198, addressing confidentiality and translation exemption requests in connection with Seb's application for costs following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application. The judge-rapporteur classified certain redacted information as confidential, restricted access to a limited confidentiality circle, and granted Seb an exemption from translating specified French-language exhibits and case law i
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V. v.***
Revocation Action
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Application for provisional measures
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V. v.***
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court seeking full revocation of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity claim. The defendant accepted the withdrawal, and the court recorded the withdrawal, declared the case closed, and noted the parties' agreement that each would bear its own costs.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd v.Manju Kumari Wife Of Sudhir Suman & Anr
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Danone Asia Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd to cancel the registration of the trademark PROTRILEX, which was found to be deceptively similar to Danone's registered trademark PROTINEX. The court held that the registration of PROTRILEX was in violation of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register within four weeks.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al
Infringement Action
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al
Infringement Action
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Revocation Action
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
Infringement Action
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7C0E224273, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd., XIAOMI Technology Netherlands B.V., XIAOMI Technology Germany GmbH concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4344633 against multiple defendants including Sinocare Inc. and various Menarini and Obelis entities. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and seeking to limit jurisdiction to UPC Contracting Member States. The judge-rapporteur deferred the decision on the preliminary objection to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the objection could not lead to complete dismissal and that relevant case law was still evolving.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP), in which the claimant La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. filed an application under Rule 262a of the Rules of Procedure seeking protection of confidential information contained in exhibit MW21. The claimant submitted MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to demonstrate 'concern by the patent' under Article 47.6 UPCA, and requested that access to the unredacted version be restricted to the Court, the Registry, the claimant's representatives, and the defendants' representatives on an 'attorneys' eyes only' basis. The defendants opposed the application, requesting broader access including external Indian counsel and external experts.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.XIAOMI Inc. a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-19) under reference UPC_7EEE0670ED, Advanced Standard Communication LLC appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc. a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o.
Infringement Action
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1903733. After the Defendant filed its defence along with an application to amend the patent, and the Claimant filed its reply, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-18) under reference UPC_7A69536D4E, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB appeared in dispute with Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Robert Bosch France SAS and others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of an upcoming oral hearing in an appeal (UPC-CoA-50/2026) related to patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants, a group of Robert Bosch entities, requested that the oral hearing scheduled for 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, or alternatively that their representative be permitted to speak in English. The respondent, Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage, consented to the main request. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing proceedings be conducted in English, without changing the official language of the appeal proceedings.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in appeal case UPC-CoA-50/2026 concerning patent EP 4 144 599. The appellants (several Robert Bosch entities) appealed an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction and language of procedure in an infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage. The Court of Appeal ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing scheduled for May 26, 2026 would
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited v.Walter Healthcare Private Limited And Anr
The Delhi High Court declared the trademark CALPOL as a well-known trademark in terms of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to its long-standing reputation and extensive use in India. The court recognized the significant commercial presence and recognition of the mark CALPOL in the field of medicine and pharmaceutical products. The defendant was restrained from using the WALPOL mark, which was deemed deceptively similar to the CALPOL mark.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Revocation Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This order concerns Huawei's application for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich regarding inspection of case file documents. Quinn Emanuel had sought access to pleadings filed in terminated infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek, which the Rapporteur initially granted subject to redaction. After Huawei challenged this, the Local Division confirmed the Rapporteur's amended decision and found Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded, without allowing appeal. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912. After the Defendant filed its Defence together with an Application to amend the patent, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the parties agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd. concerning EP 1903733 on 7 April 2026. Before service on the Defendant, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action on 23 April 2026, stating no party would seek a cost decision and requesting partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 50% reimbursement of the court fees (EUR 13,250) to the Claimant.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Application for provisional measures
MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
Generic Order
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB v.EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION
In this legal proceeding before Stockholm (SE) - Seat of the Regional Division (decision issued on 2026-05-12) under reference UPC_BA5D0405D2, 1. MERIL LIFE SCIENCES PVT LIMITED 2. MERIL GMBH 3. SMIS INTERNATIONAL OÜ 4. SORMEDICA, UAB 5. INTERLUX, UAB 6. VAB-LOGISTIK, UAB appeared in dispute with EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
Application RoP262A
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Infringement Action
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al
Avient Protective Materials B.V. initiated a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group, comprising two Chinese companies, alleging infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) multifilament yarn. The claimant asserted infringement of three groups of claims concerning multifilament yarn, composite articles, and ballistic-resistant panels against the defendants' 'Xingi UD Fibers', 'Xingi UD Fabrics', and 'Xingi UD Panels' products. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Local Division The Hague under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Adobe's request for discretionary review of an order from the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned KEEEX SAS's infringement action based on patent EP 2 949 070, where Adobe sought dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC member states. The Court of Appeal found the request moot because the same legal question had already been conclusively settled in related proceedings on 13 March 2026.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
Infringement Action
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (Rule 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned whether the UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringements of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held that the request was without foundation because the fundamental legal question had already been definitively resolved by the Court of Appeal's earlier order of
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited v.Garg Realtech Private Limited
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Select Citywalk Retail Private Limited against Garg Realtech Private Limited, restraining the defendants from using the trademark 'CITYWALK' or 'GLOBAL CITYWALK'. The court also granted exemption from pre-institution mediation and advance service to the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were using a deceptively similar trademark, which could cause confusion among consumers.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
Application for provisional measures
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV v.BARCO NV
Generic Order
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
Application for provisional measures
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
Infringement Action
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures (interim injunction) filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV regarding European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed the requirements of urgency and necessity for interim relief, particularly focusing on the applicant's burden to demonstrate timely knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the potential infringement. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on April 22, 2026, by a panel including the presiding judge Dr. Thom.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, v.BrainPortfolio Inc. a. o.
This case concerns an application for provisional measures brought by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1, against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged patent infringement. The order, issued by the 2nd Panel of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, addresses the legal principles regarding urgency and the applicant's duty to act without undue delay in seeking interim relief. The court established guidelines on the burden of proof concerning the applicant's knowledge or constructive knowledge of the allegedly infringing embodiment and the obligation to promptly investigate the infringement.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. Et al
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance addresses several applications in a patent infringement dispute between GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (claimant) and fifteen Moderna entities (defendants) concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1. The order primarily deals with GSK's Rule 176 application requesting that the Court order the in-person hearing of five party experts (two from GSK and three from Moderna) at the oral proceedings. Moderna opposes the application, arguing that the extensive written expert reports already provide sufficient technical background and that the decision to hear further expert evidence lies at the Court's discretion. The order also addresses preparations for the interim conference scheduled for 11 June 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Infringement Action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
Counterclaim for revocation
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application on May 4, 2026, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in Stuttgart, in advance of a planned main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on May 6, 2026, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection proceedings and a pending counterclaim for revocation in a separate main action.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Infringement Action
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Infringement Action
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
Infringement Action
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Application for provisional measures
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Generic Order
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement Action
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
Generic Order
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 between Hurom Co., Ltd. as Claimant and NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. as Defendant. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendant raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
AGATHON AG v.INTERCOM S.R.L. And KNARR VERTRIEBS GMBH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a penalty request in enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., withdrew its requests for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendants by brief of 10 April 2026. The Defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns an order by the Local Chamber Hamburg regarding the determination of coercive measures (Zwangsmittel) under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant, Brita SE, had previously obtained an order on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. prohibiting the marketing of certain water filter devices and requiring disclosure of sales information. The current order addresses the determination of enforcement measures related to that prior injunction.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. and WARMCOOK
This case concerns an Application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the Court of Appeal's decision to set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismiss the infringement action regarding EP 2 028 981. The Claimant withdrew its Application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026, and the Respondents raised no objections. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that no separate cost decision was needed f
Simmons & Simmons LLP v.Genentech Inc., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Organon Heist B.V., and NV Organon
This order concerns an application by Simmons & Simmons LLP under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants, which were orders to preserve evidence and for inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1 that were subsequently withdrawn. The Judge-Rapporteur held that while Article 45 UPCA permits confidentiality in the interest of justice, access should be granted to redacted submissions leading to the orders and review decisions, but not to information subject to an EEO-regime for which destruction/return requests were pending when the actions were withdrawn.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Application for provisional measures
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Revocation Action
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
Access To Case
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
Generic Order
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
Generic Order
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele filed an application for provisional measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of EP 4 676 295 B1 through Melitta's 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags. After the court indicated that the patent's validity appeared compromised by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, ordered Miele to reimburse Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (€7,300) beca