Patent Cases

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

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

Page 449 of 453

patent LITIGATION

Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.

· UPC_CFI_661/2025

Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against numerous Geely Group entities (including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart companies) regarding European Patent EP 4 090 075, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. During the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and sought withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side under the new Rule 370.9(b) RoP (applicable from January 1, 2026), while rejecting Nokia's request for a 60% reimbursement.
patent LITIGATION

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 and Authenticity (C2PA)

· UPC_CFI_530/2025

This case concerns a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by defendants Adobe against an order of the judge-rapporteur dated April 24, 2026, which had rejected the defendants' requests to declare inadmissible or summarily dismiss KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million) made in its reply brief. The panel rejected all of Adobe's arguments, confirming that the provisional damages claim was not contrary to the procedural protocol, was not late, and did not warrant summary dismissal at this stage. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION

Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm (EP 3 511 174)

· UPC_CoA_312/2025

This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174 (DE and UK designations), a patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025) addressed issues of claim construction, private prior use, international jurisdiction over non-UPC patent designations, joint tortfeasorship, and front-loaded proceedings. The Court of Appeal issued important headnotes on the UPC's international jurisdiction, particularly regarding European patents validated in non-UPC territories, and on how the Court should handle infringement and revocation actions involving EU/LC and non-EU/LC European patents.
patent LITIGATION

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (UPC-CFI-0002246/2025)

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-0002246/2025

This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) dated 2 June 2026, concerning an application to vary the operative part of an earlier order of 28 May 2026 in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against several Oppo entities regarding patent EP3944587. The parties jointly requested minor variations to the disclosure obligations regarding KPN's licensing agreements and to the deadline for the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur allowed the joint request and ordered the variations as requested.
patent LITIGATION

Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-502/2024

An infringement action concerning European Patent EP2387844 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division). The patent had been revoked by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO, and the claimant KPN had filed a petition for review with the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP pending a final, non-appealable decision in the EPO opposition proceedings, and the court granted the joint request.
patent LITIGATION

Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB and Others

Hamburg – Local Division · UPC_CFI_1661/2025

Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 618 514 against seven defendants, including LYNK & CO, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities. The Claimant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Panel permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
patent LITIGATION

Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited & Others (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
patent LITIGATION

Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_CFI_387/2025

Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of orders from the Court of Appeal and the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP3119235. During oral proceedings in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement not to seek cost reimbursement. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
patent LITIGATION

Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.

PARIS LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_684/2025

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2237738. Align Technology sought to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, arguing they were raised for the first time in the Rejoinder rather than in the Statement of Defence. The Judge-rapporteur granted Align's application, declaring the new arguments and exhibits inadmissible and ordering they not be relied upon at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
patent LITIGATION

Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS & Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. & Others (EP 4 252 857)

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_195/2025

This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European patent EP 4 252 857. Both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the closure of the written procedure and requested reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed both proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of court fees under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable from 1 January 2026.
patent LITIGATION

Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_CFI_360/2026

The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company) contesting the UPC's international jurisdiction over it in an infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Claimant sought relief against all three defendants in Germany, France, Finland, and the UK. The court held that while jurisdiction under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation could be established via anchor defendants for UPC member states, the Claimant failed to plead facts showing that the anchor defendants (German entities) jointly infringed the UK part of the patent.
patent LITIGATION

Morello Forni Italia S.R.L. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano

· UPC_D04748655E

This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC_CFI_1291/2026

This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned an application for provisional measures, specifically an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction,' filed by Nokia entities against Geely entities regarding European Patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075. After the injunction was granted ex parte on April 20, 2026, and security of €600,000 was deposited, the applicants withdrew the application with the respondents' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the security deposit.
patent LITIGATION

2seventy Bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., et al. and Legend Biotech Corporation, et al.

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_CFI_029/2026

This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 689 383, owned by the United States of America. The Claimant, 2seventy Bio, Inc., filed an infringement action against Johnson & Johnson, various Janssen entities, and Legend Biotech entities, who filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court indicated its intention to hold a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent.
patent LITIGATION

Ferring B.V. and Others v.Accord Healthcare B.V. and Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-1470/2026

Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The defendants (various Accord Healthcare entities and others) requested correction of service dates and alignment of deadlines for filing preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6 (Pharmadox Healthcare Limited), whose representative had not yet appeared.
patent LITIGATION

Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_758/2024

Hologic, Inc. brought an infringement action against four Siemens entities concerning European Patent EP 2 352 431 B1, which protects a method and system for controlling x-ray focal spot characteristics for tomosynthesis and mammography imaging. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement by the MAMMOMAT B.brilliant mammography system, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, damages, and publication of the decision, with costs split 80/20 against the defendants.
patent LITIGATION

Unreadable due to text encoding corruption v.Ex Parte

· UPC_7762E8DDD4

The provided judgment text is severely corrupted with encoding errors, rendering the case name, parties, facts, and outcome unreadable. Fragments suggest it may be a patent validity or infringement case involving analysis of patent claims and prior art, but no reliable details can be extracted.
patent LITIGATION

Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC

· UPC-CoA-85/2026

This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
patent LITIGATION

Infoblox Inc. and Others v.Nixu FL IP Protection LLC

Hamburg - Local Division · UPC_CFI_360/2026

In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1, the defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) applied under R. 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, Nixu FL IP Protection LLC, to provide security for costs. The defendants argued that Nixu was a recently incorporated litigation vehicle whose patent portfolio and all related income were pledged to a third party, rendering it economically assetless, and that enforcement of a UPC cost award in Florida would be uncertain. The Local Division Hamburg ordered Nixu to provide security of €200,000, finding that while Florida's recognition statutes did not justify security, Nixu's economic assetlessness due to the pledged patent portfolio did.
patent LITIGATION

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others

· UPC_CFI_1321/2025

The Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, sought a two-week extension of its deadline under Rule 29(a) RoP to file its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 016 464 B1 against several Xiaomi entities. The Defendants consented to the extension under the condition of reciprocity. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, extending the deadline only until 24 June 2026 (a weekend-adjusted extension) rather than the requested 6 July 2026, citing the need to preserve adequate preparation time for the oral hearing scheduled for 11 December 2026.
patent LITIGATION

INSULET Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd

Milan - Central Division · UPC_CFI_1230/2026

Cost decision of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerning INSULET Corporation's application for recovery of legal costs arising from EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal and related appellate proceedings regarding a penalty order. The Court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, awarding INSULET a total of EUR 14,000 in reasonable and proportionate legal costs, while dismissing the parties' confidentiality requests.
patent LITIGATION

GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and Others

The Hague - Local Division · UPC_CFI_616/2025

This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1, owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities. Following an interim conference, the judge-rapporteur issued orders streamlining the proceedings, limiting validity attacks and auxiliary requests, deciding on evidentiary objections, and scheduling the oral hearing for 1 September 2026.
patent LITIGATION

Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, Solectric GmbH

· UPC_CFI_735/2025

Irdeto B.V. brought an infringement action against DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH alleging that DJI drones and their controllers infringed EP 2 831 787 B1, which relates to methods for preventing security threats on electronic devices. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, ordering each party to bear their own costs.
patent LITIGATION

Unparseable Case v.Ex Parte

· UPC_7299295111

The provided judgment text appears to be corrupted or encoded binary data and does not contain readable case information. No case title, parties, facts, or legal reasoning can be extracted from the input.
patent LITIGATION

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.

The Hague - Local Division · UPC-CFI-0001568/2025

The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) issued an order addressing two R.220.2 RoP applications for leave to appeal filed by the represented defendants in three consolidated infringement actions concerning three Ericsson European patents. The court refused leave to appeal the order referring a preliminary objection to the main proceedings, but granted leave to appeal the confidentiality order setting a phased confidentiality regime for comparable licences in the FRAND/SEP context.
patent LITIGATION

InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.

Mannheim Local Division · UPC_CFI_86/2025

InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
patent LITIGATION

SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_ 1599/2026

This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a stay of cost proceedings. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay in the interests of proper administration of justice.
patent LITIGATION

Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_301/2025

This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_301/2025) and counterclaim (UPC_CFI_713/2025). Orange SA, as proprietor of European Patent EP2345029, sues HMD Global Oy for infringement, while HMD Global Oy has filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Judge-rapporteur set the total value in dispute at 3 million euros, scheduled oral hearings for 7-8 July 2026, and ordered the parties to address validity before infringement.
patent LITIGATION

Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH

· UPC_CFI_184/2025

This case before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 106 035, held by Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device used in food processing machines. Handtmann sued competitor VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH for infringement regarding its vacuum filling machines 'DPnx' and 'HPnx', while VEMAG counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The court rendered a mixed decision, partially upholding the patent in amended form (auxiliary request 2) and partially finding it invalid, with costs split 20% to the claimant and 80% to the defendant.
patent LITIGATION

Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel Technologies France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V., and Henkel Italia S.r.l.

Paris Local Division · UPC_CFI_583/2025

This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1, owned by Bostik, Inc. Bostik alleges infringement by certain Henkel Liofol® products, while Henkel counterclaims for revocation of the patent. Following an interim conference, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including Bostik's partial withdrawal, the value of the case, the definition of the skilled person, applications to exclude documents, and the schedule for the oral hearing.
1 •••448449450•••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 →