European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 1 of 92 · 2,185 total
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 evidence-production applications, which had been filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited (the decisions not being titled 'order', the R. 190-Applications not appearing in the requests section, and incomplete appeal information) did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing the missed 15-day appeal deadline under R. 224.1(b) RoP.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
BIOGARAN v.H. Lundbeck A/S
BIOGARAN, a French generic medicines company, filed a revocation action before the UPC Central Division (Milan) seeking to invalidate European Patent No. 4223296 owned by H. Lundbeck A/S, which relates to the use of nalmefene for treating alcohol dependence. BIOGARAN challenged the patent on grounds of added matter, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court dismissed the revocation action, finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered BIOGARAN to bear the costs of the proceedings and pay an interim award of EUR 100,000.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its appeals against the rejection of its R. 190-Applications (production of evidence) contained in the Munich Local Division's decisions of 11 March 2026, which it had filed late. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that it had taken all due care as required by R. 320 RoP, distinguishing the present case from the AIM v Supponor precedent and finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the late filing.
Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV v.In(k)control BV
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English. The appellants (Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV) appealed the decision of the President of the Local Division Brussels, who had rejected their request to change the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the President had correctly exercised her discretion in maintaining Dutch as the language of proceedings, given that both parties are established in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium and the respondent is a small enterprise.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a procedural order issued by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court in an appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274. The judge-rapporteur declined TCL's request to hold an interim conference, finding no reason to deviate from the standard Rules of Procedure. The appeal was deemed ready for oral hearing, which was scheduled for 28 January 2027 in Luxembourg.
Inficon GmbH v.Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd.
Inficon GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 567 356 B1 relating to a sniffing leak detector, brought an infringement action against Elitech Technology, Inc. and Elitech UK Ltd. concerning their 'METRUM' product, while the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant's measurements regarding the buffer chamber feature were unconvincing and inconclusive, and that the patent as granted was valid.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC appealed an order of the Paris Local Division dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 689 198 and paid court fees of EUR 90,300 based on the case value set by the Local Division. The Court of Appeal subsequently determined the value of the appeal proceedings at EUR 3,750,000, half of the original value, resulting in a correct fee of EUR 52,400. SharkNinja applied for reimbursement of the EUR 37,900 overpayment, which the Court of Appeal granted.
Micron Technology, Inc. v.Ultron AG, Lexar Europe B.V., Apacer Technology B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the service of the Statement of Claim on Defendant 2, Lexar Europe B.V. The Court had attempted service by registered post in accordance with Rules 270-274 RoP and Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, but the documents were not collected and were returned undelivered. The Claimant requested alternative service via a Dutch judicial officer (gerechtsdeurwaarder) under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784, and the Court granted the request.
Canfield Scientific GmbH et al. v.QUANTIFICARE S.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a separate invalidity action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that since the appeal also challenged the first-instance dismissal of Canfield's invalidity counterclaim, the appeal court would itself review the patent's validity, making a stay unjustified. The court further noted that the invalidity action before the Central Chamber was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others v.QUANTIFICARE S.A. (EP 3 156 843)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a revocation action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that no special circumstances justified a stay, particularly because the appeal court would itself review the validity of the patent in the context of Canfield's appeal against the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim, and because the third-party revocation action was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities (UPC-CoA-165/2026)
The UPC Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Hurtel Sp. z o.o.'s application for access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in relation to the concluded main proceedings (UPC-CoA-534/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997. The court held that the language of the access application must correspond to the language of the main proceedings, which was German. Hurtel was granted the opportunity to resubmit its application in German by October 9, 2026.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. applied to the UPC Court of Appeal for access to the case file of proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities were parties. The main proceedings had been conducted in German, and Hurtel initially filed its access request in a different language. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the access application must match the language of the main proceedings and ordered Hurtel to resubmit its request in German by October 9, 2026.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses NVIDIA's request for reimbursement of court fees paid in error. NVIDIA had filed a reinstatement application and an appeal against the decision on the revocation counterclaim under the wrong case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) before re-filing under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal partially granted the reimbursement, ordering the Registry to refund 2,940 EUR in overpaid appeal fees and 460 EUR in overpaid reinstatement application fees.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and a request for reimbursement. NVIDIA had filed an appeal and a request for re-instatement under an incorrect case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) and subsequently re-filed them under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal ordered partial reimbursement of 2,940 EUR for overpaid appeal fees and full reimbursement of 460 EUR for the overpaid re-instatement application fee.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC v.Amazon.com, Inc. et al.
NovaCloud Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against multiple Amazon entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 4 024 777. Both parties subsequently withdrew their respective claims—the claimant withdrew its infringement action and the defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation—and agreed that each party would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and set the overall value of the dispute at 5 Mio. EUR.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Emboline Inc.'s application seeking to disregard certain evidence as late-filed or, alternatively, to be granted leave to file further written pleadings in the appeal proceedings. The disputed evidence consisted of Exhibit HRM 26 (a written witness statement of Prof. Marco De Carlo) and paragraphs 101–120 of AorticLab srl's Statement of response. The Court held that no further pleadings or evidence would be allowed at that stage and ordered the written procedure to be closed.