Patent Cases

12,714 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 4,909 European UPC 2,185 US PTAB 5,620

Page 17 of 424

patent LITIGATION · Jun 29, 2026

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_EA9C52CFAE

This appeal concerns a request for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Quinn Emanuel sought access to certain submissions filed in a terminated infringement case between Huawei and MediaTek before the Local Division Munich. The Reporting Judge initially granted the request, subject to redactions, and the second panel of the Local Division confirmed that decision, finding Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, which issued this order addressing procedural matters regarding the appeal.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1160/2026 UPC_CFI_1160/2026 Full Details

Generic Order
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed NV

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC-CFI-1357/2025 UPC-CFI-1357/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_2022/2025 UPC_CFI_2022/2025 Full Details

Counterclaim for revocation
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_1035/2026 UPC_CFI_1035/2026 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_0F52BA837A

In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-26) under reference UPC_0F52BA837A, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril Gmbh concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Co

Brussels (BE) Local Division · UPC_EF642509B9

This Order II concerns an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC proceedings (infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_629/2025) relating to European Patent EP 3 107 487 B1. The applicants sought an order requiring LABS to produce specific evidence, including sales figures for Motiva SilkSurface implants, physical samples manufactured before the priority date, and various promotional and marketing materials. The Court granted the 'Primary Order' requests (with the exception of request I.c and an adjustment to request I.b), ordering LABS to produce the requested evidence within 21 days, while emphasizing the need to align evidence-gathering requests between parallel UPC and UK proceedings for procedural efficiency and proportionality.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_7DE080809C

The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 26, 2026

Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_5C71A7F572

This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 25, 2026

Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC_CFI_425/2025 UPC_CFI_425/2025 Full Details

Revocation Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 25, 2026

KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_CFI_530/2025 UPC_CFI_530/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 25, 2026

1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat · UPC_5374593AF6

The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
patent LITIGATION · Jun 25, 2026

KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)

Paris (FR) Local Division · UPC_043C972329

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP294090. The defendants (OpenAI, Adobe, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation Projects, and C2PA) filed requests to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent modification request from KEEEX's June 5, 2026 memorandum. The judge-rapporteur partially granted and partially rejected these requests, declaring certain infringement-related
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Robert Bosch (multiple entities) v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage

Paris Local Division · UPC_EF80DD3DA1

This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS & Others

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_9FFDC82043

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside orders of the Paris Central Division that had held it lacked competence and referred the infringement action to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the Paris Central Division has competence to hear an infringement action brought against multiple defendants, some of whom are established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, where there is a commercial relationship among the defendants and the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The Court clarified that the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA does not constitute an exception to the competence of local and regional divisions but rather provides for central division competence in specific circumstances.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-CoA-50/2026 UPC-CoA-50/2026 Full Details

Appeal RoP220.2
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC_CFI_830/2024 UPC_CFI_830/2024 Full Details

Revocation Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_CFI_811/2024 UPC_CFI_811/2024 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC-CFI-868/2025 UPC-CFI-868/2025 Full Details

Counterclaim for revocation
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC-CoA-4/2026 UPC-CoA-4/2026 Full Details

Appeal RoP220.2
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC-CFI-0001103/2026 UPC-CFI-0001103/2026 Full Details

Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

ILLUMINA, INC. v.Element Biosciences, Inc - ‎ Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - ‎ ‎I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC-CFI-1920/2025 UPC-CFI-1920/2025 Full Details

Infringement Action
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

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

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_49DA81E0C6

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by six Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Local Division Paris confirming its jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage concerning EP 4 144 599. The Court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA — commercial link between defendants and same alleged infringement — were satisfied, as membership in the same group of companies can establish a commercial link and the alleg
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS

Munich (DE) Central Division - Section · UPC_069E908F13

This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.

Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division · UPC_38714219AD

Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.

Munich (DE) Local Division · UPC_1F8853223B

Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A

Luxembourg (LU) · UPC_3D4ECF373A

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V

The Hague (NL) Local Division · UPC_4DDABDCE14

Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag sought review of an ex parte order for preservation of evidence dated 17 April 2026, concerning European Patent EP3289139, against WEPA Nederland B.V. The defendant WEPA requested review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The single judge denied the review, finding that no obligation for employees to answer questions could be derived from the order, that the order adequately set a time limit for initiating proceedings on the merits, and that urgency was properly assumed given the digital nature of documents and the defendant's membership in a group of companies.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 22, 2026

- ILLUMINA, INC. v.- Element Biosciences, Inc - ‎ Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - ‎ ‎I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA

Lisbon (PT) Local Division · UPC_34842A121E

This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
patent LITIGATION · Jun 19, 2026

fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent

Düsseldorf Division · UPC_0B9D692D99

ORDER
1 •••161718•••424
Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →