Patent Cases

13,576 decisions across India · European UPC · US PTAB

India 2,847 European UPC 2,007 US PTAB 8,722

Page 446 of 453

La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS and Substipharm

Milan (Central Division · UPC_CFI_927/2025

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected La Siddhi Consultancy Limited's application for suspensive effect of an order requiring it to provide €75,000 in security for legal costs in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court of First Instance (Central Division Milan) had ordered the security under R. 158 RoP, and La Siddhi appealed, seeking suspension of that order pending appeal. The Court of Appeal held that La Siddhi failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, such as manifest error, infringement of fundamental procedural rights, or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.

patent LITIGATION

GC Aesthetics Group v.Establishment Labs S.A. (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

This is a Procedural Order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The GC Aesthetics group of companies (Defendants in the infringement action) filed an application under R. 190 RoP seeking production of evidence from LABS related to the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants. The Court issued a conditional order granting certain evidence production requests while dismissing others, based on cumulative conditions including reasonable available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.

patent LITIGATION

BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V., BYD France SAS, BYD Automotive GmbH, BYD Mobility GmbH, and BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_2070/2025

BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI), a US company, brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple BYD Group entities domiciled in China, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the UK, concerning European Patent EP2937706. Three BYD defendants domiciled in China and the UK filed a preliminary objection challenging the court's international jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts committed in the UK and UPC member states. The court held that it lacked international jurisdiction over the UK-domiciled Defendant 7 (BYD UK) since no infringing acts were alleged within UPC or EU territory, while deferring the jurisdictional question regarding the Chinese defendants to the decision on the merits.

patent LITIGATION

Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.

· UPC_CFI_779/2024

Brita SE sued Wessper Sp. z o.o. for indirect infringement of European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1 concerning a device for filtering liquids. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that Wessper indirectly infringed the patent by offering and distributing filter cartridges designed to interact with a second component according to the invention. The court ordered disclosure, damages, and other remedies, though the patent had expired on April 27, 2025.

patent LITIGATION

Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., and TCL Belgium SA

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CFI_819/2024

Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.

patent LITIGATION

Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., and Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.

Munich Local Division · UPC_CoA_328/2024

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.

patent LITIGATION

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., and Goodyear Operations S.A.

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_138/2025

Michelin filed an infringement action against Goodyear before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court based on European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to variable surface area tire treads. Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation, and Michelin filed 14 auxiliary requests to conditionally amend the patent. The Court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, dismissed Michelin's infringement claims, and ordered Michelin to bear the legal costs.

patent LITIGATION

Prinoth SPA v.Xelom S.r.l.

· UPC_CFI_703/2025

Prinoth SPA, the plaintiff in a patent infringement action, sought a 30-day extension of time under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. The defendant Xelom opposed the request. The Local Division of Milan granted the extension until May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, attacks, and arguments in its rejoinder that effectively constituted a new counterclaim for revocation.

patent LITIGATION

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.

· UPC_CoA_901/2025

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Local Division The Hague's order dismissing Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for provisional measures concerning EP 3 988 471, a patent for a glucose monitoring system. The Court of Appeal found that the Respondents indirectly infringed claims 1 and 14 of the patent and ordered them to cease such infringement, subject to penalty payments. The Respondents' cross-appeal was declared inadmissible as they were not adversely affected by the first instance decision.

patent LITIGATION

Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, and Sophia Genetics GmbH

Paris Local Division · UPC-CFI 0000591/2026

This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns Guardant Health's application for leave to appeal a cost decision issued by the Paris Local Division. The standing judge granted leave to appeal, finding that the cost decision was prematurely issued before Guardant had access to unredacted confidential documents and an opportunity to comment. However, the request to join these cost appeal proceedings with the pending provisional measures appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2026) was rejected, as cost assessment is a separate procedure with its own appeal mechanism.

patent LITIGATION

Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag v.WEPA Nederland B.V

· UPC-CFI-0001103/2026

Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under R. 192 RoP against WEPA Nederland B.V concerning European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which covers tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing seizure of evidence including description, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, applying specific Dutch national rules for seizure procedures.

patent LITIGATION

Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales Co. Ltd.

· UPC_CFI_1291/2026

Nokia sought an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against Geely entities, seeking to prevent Geely from pursuing an 'Interim Licence' application before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court that would force Nokia into a global interim licence agreement for its standard-essential patents. The court found it had jurisdiction and granted the interim measures, ordering Geely to withdraw the interim licence application with effect for the UPC territory and prohibiting further pursuit of the interim licence proceedings.

patent LITIGATION

Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.

MILAN LOCAL DIVISION · UPC CFI 472/2024

Dainese S.p.A. brought infringement actions against Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike S.l. concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364 relating to protective airbag systems for motorcyclists. The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed jurisdictional objections from the Spanish-domiciled defendant Motocard Bike, ultimately dismissing the preliminary objection but separating and staying the infringement action regarding Spanish territory pending validity determination. The Court dismissed both the defendants' revocation counterclaims against EP '364 (as amended before the EPO Opposition Division) and Dainese's infringement claims.

patent LITIGATION

Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE

· UPC_CFI_461/2025

Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720, which concerns a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's 20-year maximum protection period had expired on August 7, 2024, before the action was filed on June 6, 2025. The Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in the amended form according to auxiliary request 1, with costs allocated 70% to the plaintiffs and 30% to the defendant.

patent LITIGATION

3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.G.A. S.r.l., Azienda Chimica e Farmaceutica S.r.l. (A.C.E.F. S.r.l.), and MFCI Co., Ltd.

· UPC_515D5DDF53

This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.

patent LITIGATION

Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others

· UPC_CFI_559/2024

The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 (relating to a device and method for three-dimensional reconstruction of head and body using stereophotogrammetry) by the defendants' Canfield Vectra H2 3D imaging system. The court held that establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State suffices to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, even where the patent proprietor carves out one member state (here Germany) for procedural reasons. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed, injunctive relief and provisional damages were granted, and costs were allocated 90/10 against the defendants.

patent LITIGATION

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.

· UPC_CFI_617/2025

The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Claimant's request for review of an order requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 300,000 in patent infringement proceedings against Xiaomi entities. The court held that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' does not relieve the Claimant of its obligation to provide security for costs, and that ATE insurance negotiations do not automatically remove such an obligation. The Judge-Rapporteur's order of 24 March 2026 was upheld, and leave to appeal was not granted.

patent LITIGATION

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others (UPC_CFI_617/2024)

· UPC_CFI_617/2024

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court correcting a clerical error in a prior order. The correction changes the case number from UPC_CFI_617/2025 to UPC_CFI_617/2024. The underlying proceedings concern alleged patent infringement involving European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, with Advanced Standard Communication LLC as the claimant and several Xiaomi entities as defendants.

patent LITIGATION

Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-305/2026

Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.

patent LITIGATION

Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS

Copenhagen Local Division · UPC-COA-0000057/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.

patent LITIGATION

10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_140/2024

The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.

patent LITIGATION

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_716/2025

This is a rectification decision issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 27 April 2026 in case UPC_CFI_716/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 258 692 B1. The Court corrected a calculation error in Section V of its earlier order dated 16 February 2026, finding that 60% of the court fees amounted to €18,600 rather than the previously stated €14,400.

patent LITIGATION

Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V. (UPC_CoA_60/2026)

· UPC_CoA_60/2026

This decision concerns an application for cost assessment filed by Niche Biomedical, Inc. with the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, which was withdrawn on the same day it was filed. The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265(1) RoP, noting that the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications, and declared the proceedings terminated.

patent LITIGATION

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH

· UPC_CFI_685/2024

Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1 relating to clay-based hemostatic agents and devices, brought an infringement action against Speed Care Mineral GmbH concerning its SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing. Speed Care filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Hamburg revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 for ten contracting states, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Teleflex to bear the costs.

patent LITIGATION

Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV v.In(k)control BV (UPC_CFI_871/2026)

· UPC_CFI_871/2026

The President of the UPC Court of First Instance dismissed an application by Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV (Defendants in the main proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV concerning EP 3841735. The court held that while English is the language of the patent and the relevant technology field, the particular circumstances—including the significant size disparity between the parties and the fact that all parties are domiciled in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium—outweighed the advantages of conducting the proceedings in English.

patent LITIGATION

Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé

Paris Local Division · UPC_CoA_917/2025

Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.

patent LITIGATION

fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG

· UPC_CFI_1332/2026

fiskaly GmbH, holder of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 relating to securely registering a sequence of transactions, applied to the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for an order for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA) at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, suspecting infringement. The court granted the application in part, ordering inspection by an independent expert, confidentiality protections, and requiring fiskaly to provide EUR 10,000 security and bear all costs, while dismissing the remainder of the application.

patent LITIGATION

Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited

Milan Local Division · UPC_5ED4A51AD4

Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.

patent LITIGATION

Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation

· UPC_CFI_705/2025

This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.

patent LITIGATION

Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH

· UPC_CFI_869/2025

This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_869/2025 concerning EP 3 805 415. The Plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., filed a late objection under Rule 9.2 RoP against new factual submissions made by the Defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) in their reply to the amendment request in revocation proceedings. The Rapporteur Judge postponed the decision on the late objection to be decided by the full panel, but granted the Plaintiff a precautionary opportunity to file a further pleading by May 19, 2026, in view of the principle of equality of arms.

1 •••445 446 447•••453

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 →