European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 1 of 84 · 2,007 total
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Rectification application under Rule 353 RoP before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli sought correction of a material error in a prior decision dated 26.5.2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023 and later withdrew it on 26.11.2024. The Court found the request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence, as the defendant did not file any observations.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This case concerns an application by Rematec under R. 333 RoP seeking review of a judge-rapporteur's order that dismissed Rematec's request to have its Application for a cost decision, originally filed with the Court of Appeal, referred to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division) while preserving the original filing date. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but unfounded, ruling that cost decision proceedings must be initiated before the Court of First Instance even when they concern costs of appeal proceedings, and dismissed the application.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
IPG Laser appealed a decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court that had dismissed its counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 951 625 and found it liable for direct infringement. Shortly after filing the appeal, IPG Laser applied to withdraw it, requesting full or partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (€21,145) under Rule 370.9(b) RoP.
ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited
ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 relating to dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities for alleged indirect infringement of method claim 1 based on Lenovo's marketing of an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the application, holding that ParTec failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and did not provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product onto the market.
Robert Bosch Doo Beograd and Others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had rejected their preliminary objections to the court's competence. The court addressed the interpretation of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA regarding the requirements for establishing competence over multiple defendants, holding that belonging to the same group of companies can constitute a commercial relationship and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition requires the same patent and substantially the same products, irrespective of commercial designations or supply channels.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the central division (Paris section) of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Robert Bosch entities, including defendants based in Serbia and China. The Paris central division held it lacked competence and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal set aside those orders, holding that the central division (Paris section) has competence to hear the infringement action and that the language of proceedings is French.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought an infringement action against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled 'motorcycles tyre,' which covers a tyre with both high on-road and off-road performance. SYR counterclaimed for revocation of the patent for insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step. The Court found that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of EP'207, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, publication orders, and penalty payments against SYR.
Emporia UK and Ireland Limited v.Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. filed a revocation action against Seoul Viosys Co. Ltd. seeking invalidity of European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, which relates to a light-emitting diode. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) revoked the patent to the extent of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 11, following a prior Court of Appeal decision that had already invalidated claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 for added subject-matter. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Sinocare Inc., A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
Amazon.com, Inc. and Others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the lower court's order that had refused Amazon's request to produce a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional transcriber. The Court held that under Rule 115 RoP, a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing with the assistance of support staff such as a stenographer working in the presence and under supervision of the party or its representative. The Court further held that such private transcripts may be used in related proceedings outside the UPC, provided specific conditions regarding clear labeling and compliance with confidentiality orders are met.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a cost determination application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal in a patent infringement and revocation dispute involving EP 2 548 648. The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to determine costs and that such applications must be filed with the Court of First Instance, even when they relate to costs of appeal proceedings. Rematec's request to refer the cost determination application to the Local Division Mannheim, while preserving the original filing date, was rejected.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought interim measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. for alleged direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1, which relates to a system for neuromodulation, particularly transcutaneous spinal cord stimulation. The Court of Appeal addressed key issues including the permissibility of asserting a patent in a non-registered claim form in interim proceedings, the admissibility of new auxiliary requests under R. 222 RoP, and the determination of intended use under Art. 26 EPGÜ. The appeal was dismissed, and ONWARD Medical was ordered to pay provisional costs of EUR 56,000 to Niche Biomedical.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd. (UPC_CoA_409/2025); NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Three consolidated appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 028 981, a patent for a juice extractor owned by Hurom Co., Ltd. The appeals challenged decisions of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement by NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (Korea), and WARMCOOK's 'AUTO10' slow juicers. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of international jurisdiction under Article 26(1) Brussels Ia Regulation, particularly regarding Turkey (a non-UPC contracting EPC member state), and held that mere access to the case file does not constitute entering an appearance.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European Patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent, but the parties subsequently reached an out-of-court settlement and both applied to withdraw their respective actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal of both the revocation action and the counterclaim for infringement, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register, with no cost decision issued.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against Belparts Group N.V. concerning European patent EP3812870 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Belparts counterclaimed for infringement and applied to amend the patent. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, both parties applied to withdraw their respective actions, and the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe S.A., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A. and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen, Inc.
This decision concerns an application by Sanofi and Regeneron to withdraw their application for rehearing filed against the Court of Appeal's 25 November 2025 decision, which had set aside the Central Division Munich's revocation of EP 3 666 797 and rejected the revocation request. Amgen consented to the withdrawal and indicated no decision on costs was necessary. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and rejected the request for reimbursement of court fees because only one fee had been paid when two were due.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities regarding European Patent EP 1 962 668 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimants withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, having reached an out-of-court settlement whereby each party bears its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) to the claimants.
Applicant v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declared a second application for suspensive effect (R. 223 RoP) inadmissible. The Applicant, who was the defendant in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350, had already filed a first application for suspensive effect that was rejected on 16 January 2026. The second application, filed on 20 February 2026, raised arguments identical or very similar to those in the first application, and the court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that the new submissions could not reasonably have been made in the previous application.
Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., Amgen Europe B.V. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi Biotechnology SAS
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Amgen had appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissing its counterclaim for revocation. After the written procedure was closed and an oral hearing was scheduled, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Amgen applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, with Sanofi and Regeneron consenting. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, but dismissed Amgen's request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure, falling outside the scope of R. 370.9(b) RoP.
ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH v.CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG
ALPINA Coffee Systems appealed a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf finding infringement of EP 3 398 487 and sought suspensive effect of the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that ALPINA failed to demonstrate that the contested decision was evidently erroneous, that enforcement would render the appeal moot, or that fundamental procedural rights were violated, and that its arguments regarding potential double modification of the accused embodiment due to parallel proceedings were too vague and speculative.
Sanofi Biotechnology SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen N.V., Amgen S.R.L, Amgen GmbH, Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S., Amgen Inc., and Amgen Europe B.V.
This appeal concerned EP 3 536 712, where Sanofi and Regeneron appealed a decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division dated 13 May 2025 that dismissed their infringement action and ordered them to bear the costs. After the written procedure was closed, the appellants applied to withdraw the appeal pursuant to R. 265 RoP, indicating the parties had reached an agreement, and sought reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, but dismissed the request for reimbursement of court fees because the withdrawal occurred after the closure of the written procedure.
REEL International v.Fives ECL
REEL International filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 1 740 740 owned by Fives ECL before the Central Division (Munich Section) of the Unified Patent Court. Fives ECL raised a preliminary objection seeking to have the court decline jurisdiction based on REEL International's alleged lack of standing (intérêt à agir) and the res judicata effect of German court decisions on the German part of the patent. The judge-rapporteur rejected the preliminary objection, holding that lack of standing and res judicata are not among the exhaustive list of preliminary objections under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Procedural Order
Versah LLC v.Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action against Argimiro Antonio Hernandez Suarez concerning European Patent EP 2 919 672 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and both parties consented to the withdrawal and to a partial refund of court fees. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff (EUR 6,600).