Patent Cases

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

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

Page 452 of 453

Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl

· UPC-CoA-40/2026

This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural treatment of conditional counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal clarified that making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible, and provided guidance on how the counterclaimant should proceed if the infringement claimant appeals a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance.

patent LITIGATION

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V, Acer Computer France

Hamburg – Local Division · UPC_CFI_2231/2025

This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by the Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, for the production of evidence and a confidentiality regime under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The Claimant sought an order compelling a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements relating to the Opus standard, which incorporates the patent in suit (EP2304723), in order to respond to the Defendants' FRAND defense. Both the Defendants and the third party consented to the request, and the Court granted the order, establishing a 'Highly Confidential Information' regime with restricted access.

patent LITIGATION

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others

The Hague Local Division · UPC-CoA-100/2026

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.

patent LITIGATION

Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH

· UPC_CoA_101/2024

This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning confidentiality requests and a change of language of proceedings in a patent infringement appeal. Fives ECL appealed the first instance decision dismissing its infringement claim against REEL GmbH regarding EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal granted a confidentiality order restricting access to certain business information, changed the language of proceedings from German to English, and conditionally approved the addition of a former employee to the confidentiality circle.

patent LITIGATION

Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH, Cisco Systems, Inc.

· UPC_CoA_360/2025

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. After the Local Division Hamburg dismissed Lionra's infringement action and Cisco's revocation counterclaim, Lionra appealed. Before the oral hearing, the parties settled and Lionra withdrew its appeal with Cisco's consent. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, deemed the cross-appeal withdrawn, and terminated the proceedings. However, it rejected Lionra's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees, holding that the amended Rule 370.9 RoP (effective January 1, 2026) applied to the withdrawal request filed on July 6, 2026, which no longer provides for such reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION

Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS

· UPC-CFI-758/2024

The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.

patent LITIGATION

Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD

· UPC_CFI_2307/2026

Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.

patent LITIGATION

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.

Milan Local Division · UPC_999D4B1AB5

Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.

patent LITIGATION

Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH

· UPC_CFI_274/2023

This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg. The underlying dispute involves Fives' claim for damages based on alleged infringement of EP 1 740 740 by REEL GmbH, which was dismissed at first instance for insufficient evidence of lost profits and causation. The Court of Appeal provisionally restricted access to certain grey-highlighted information in the appeal brief and newly submitted annexes to REEL's authorized UPC representatives, pending REEL's response to the confidentiality request.

patent LITIGATION

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.

Milan Local Division · UPC_4E2848F9E1

Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK and Arvato in connection with EP 2727342 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, during the final stages of pending main proceedings on the merits before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening factual circumstances warranting interim relief beyond the temporal aggravation inherent in awaiting a final decision on the merits.

patent LITIGATION

Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH

· UPC_CFI_798/2025

This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.

patent LITIGATION

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

MILAN LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_4AA3C7CA6F

Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.

patent LITIGATION

Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

· UPC_CoA_907/2025

This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to occlusion devices for closing septal defects. The Düsseldorf Local Division had rejected Occlutech's application, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders comprised a braiding of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Attacked Embodiments do infringe claim 1 of the Patent, and granted the provisional measures ordering Lepu to cease offering, marketing, using, importing, or possessing the infringing products in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands.

patent LITIGATION

Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

· UPC_CoA_907/2025

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.

patent LITIGATION

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

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_1920/2025

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

VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.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.

· UPC-CoA-50/2026

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed their preliminary objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—commercial connection between defendants and the same alleged infringement—were satisfied, as membership in the same corporate group could establish a commercial connection and the alleged infringing wiper blade products (sold under MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN brands) appeared substantially the same in structure and dimensions.

patent LITIGATION

Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, Herrn Yong Cao

· UPC_CFI_811/2024

Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, both relating to vacuum sewer systems. The court addressed the applicability of the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA, holding that it applies only to financial compensation claims and not to injunctive relief, which is forward-looking. The court found infringement of EP 1 840 282 B1 by Defendants 1 and 3, granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, and ordered the defendants to pay damages, with costs split 70/30 in favor of the defendants.

patent LITIGATION

Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, Robert Bosch Produktie SA, Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) CO., LTD.

· UPC-CoA-4/2026

ORDONNANCE

patent LITIGATION

Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH

· UPC_CFI_425/2025

This case concerns an action for revocation of European Patent EP 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), relating to a color and light mixing collecting optic for full-color pixels in outdoor display panels, spotlights, or signaling. The plaintiff and intervener (Chainzone Technology) sought full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, inadmissible extension, and insufficient disclosure. During the proceedings, the defendant (SWARCO) limited the patent before the EPO by deleting the word 'insbesondere' from claim 1. The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in its limited form, ordering the plaintiff and intervener to bear the costs.

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, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)

· UPC_CFI_530/2025

This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Paris) in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP2949070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, and C2PA-related entities. The defendants sought to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent amendment request from KEEEX's memorandum of June 5, 2026, as inadmissible and tardy. The judge-rapporteur largely granted the defendants' requests, striking most new infringement arguments and the new amendment request, while permitting limited additional submissions under Rule 36 RoP on specific points.

patent LITIGATION

Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.

Munich Local Division · UPC_CFI_1160/2026

This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.

patent LITIGATION

LABS v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.

Brussels - Local Division · UPC_CFI_1357/2025

This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.

patent LITIGATION

Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTech Italia s.r.l., Realme Germany GmbH v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.

· UPC_CFI_2022/2025

OPPO filed a unified submission on 3 June 2026 in the infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_525/2025) that was intended to also cover the parallel revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_2022/2025) concerning European patent EP 3 346 616, but inadvertently only uploaded it to the infringement workflow. After the Court encouraged OPPO to file the submission in the correct revocation workflow, OPPO did so on 13 June 2026 and applied under Rule 9 RoP for confirmation that the time limit had been duly complied with. The Court confirmed that the time limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocation had been duly complied with, treating the late upload as a mere technical correction.

patent LITIGATION

Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, SEG Automotive Spain, S.A.U., SEG Automotive France SAS, Ferdinando Sorrentino, Gustavo Henrique Baldussi Ferreira, Claudio Ishamu Nakao, Frank Ahlborn

Düsseldorf Local Division · UPC_CFI_1035/2026

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

Dall Energy ApS v.Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH

Copenhagen Local Division · UPC_CFI_513/2025

This appeal concerned an order for the production of evidence issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Copenhagen Local Division in patent infringement proceedings involving EP 2 334 762, which relates to a method for producing clean hot gas from solid fuel. The Court of Appeal held that while the Court of First Instance did not err in principle in ordering disclosure under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, it exceeded the limits of its discretion by ordering an overly broad scope of disclosure. The order was set aside in part and replaced with a more limited measure confined to construction drawings and operation and maintenance manuals relating to the Polyheld furnace at the Oberpullendorf site.

patent LITIGATION

SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH

· UPC-CoA-066/2026

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.

patent LITIGATION

TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG

· UPC-CoA-58/2026

This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, rejecting the request for a full refund.

patent LITIGATION

OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH

· UPC_CFI_1536/2026

This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (Inspektion und Beweissicherung) against ANCA Europe GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The inspection was executed at ANCA's trade fair stand at the 'GrindingHub' trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026, and an expert subsequently prepared a detailed description of the findings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, as the respondent did not assert any confidentiality interests regarding the information contained therein.

patent LITIGATION

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

· UPC-CoA-19/2026

Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

patent LITIGATION

TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC

LISBON – LOCAL DIVISION · UPC_CFI_757/2024

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.

1 •••451 452 453

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 →