European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 10 of 67 · 1,592 total
Amgen, Inc. v.Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis Groupe and Sanofi Winthrop Industrie S.A.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal upheld the patent against revocation challenges brought by Sanofi. The ruling not only rejected the requests to invalidate but also established important legal precedents regarding claim interpretation and inventive step assessment within the Unified Patent Court. This case reinforces the rigorous standards for patentability while providing clarity on how therapeutic claims must be interpreted.
Amgen Inc. v.Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
In a significant decision concerning patent validity in the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Amgen against Regeneron. The court successfully defended the patent by affirming that the claims met the requirements for inventive step and sufficiency. Furthermore, the ruling provided detailed guidance on interpreting medical use claims, emphasizing that therapeutic efficacy is an inherent feature of such claims, not a matter to be proven solely from the claim text.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
Topsoe A/S sought provisional measures, specifically an order for inspection and evidence gathering at the premises of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, ahead of a potential infringement lawsuit. The patent in question covers hydrogen production using steam methane reforming with an electrically heated catalyst bed. Although Topsoe successfully initiated the process, the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain preliminary investigative measures within the UPC framework.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against a cost award granted in favor of Microsoft Corporation. The original dispute involved an infringement action concerning EP 2 671 173, which was ultimately dismissed by default. Although the costs were substantial (€350k), the Court of Appeal ruled that Suinno failed to meet the high threshold required to suspend enforcement of the cost decision. This reinforces the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are proven.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj initiated a revocation action against International N&H Denmark concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference to manage the proceedings. Key procedural decisions were made, including setting the case value and confirming the date for the full oral hearing in January 2026.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a revocation action concerning a patent for specialized lignocellulosic fasteners. The court delivered key legal principles regarding inventive step, stressing that assessments must not be made retrospectively based on post-grant knowledge. Crucially, the ruling established that if the claimant voluntarily limits its attack scope (by not challenging certain claims), this limitation is binding on both the defendant and the court. Consequently, the patent was partially revoked in the specified member states.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request by Canon Kabushiki Kaisha to submit further evidence regarding additional infringing products found during a late test purchase. The Court rejected the Claimant's attempt to introduce new arguments concerning these additional model numbers, citing principles of due process and procedural economy. The ruling stressed that evidence should be presented without delay when relevant deadlines are approaching, especially if the subject matter is materially identical to what has already been pleaded.
Morello Forni Italia S.r.l. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB
In a significant default judgment, the UPC Local Division of Milan found both Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano liable for infringing EP 3691454 B1, which covers pizza dough shaping methods and apparatus. The court granted an injunction and awarded provisional damages totaling €56,000, alongside a penalty per infringing product. This case highlights the procedural rigor of UPC default judgments, emphasizing that even when a defendant is absent, the claimant must meet the full burden of proof.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG
In this procedural case, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addressed a dispute over the disclosure of an expert report obtained during evidence preservation measures. The respondent (Siltronic AG) sought to keep certain sensitive commercial data—such as pricing and supplier bank details—confidential. The court ruled that while trade secret protection is paramount, the information relevant to potential infringement claims must be made available, leading to a partial redaction of the expert report before its disclosure to the claimant.
Inter Digital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company a.o. (and associated entities)
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural matters in an ongoing infringement action concerning EP 2 449 782. The Claimant sought permission to submit a further written pleading to counter the Defendants' arguments regarding non-infringement and FRAND defenses. The Court granted this request, emphasizing that principles of due process mandate giving parties adequate opportunity to address disputed technical features and legal claims. This decision keeps the written procedure open for further exchange of pleadings.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
In a significant decision regarding advanced diagnostics technology, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation involving RNAscope technology. The court dismissed the main infringement action brought by Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., finding no grounds for infringement. Crucially, the court also rejected the request to revoke the patents (EP1910572 and EP2500439), thereby confirming their validity. This ruling provides clarity on the scope of protection for specialized biotech methods in the UPC.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division to preserve evidence by inspecting a 'disposable morcellator' exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. during the MEDICA trade fair, citing suspected infringement of EP 2 593 025 B1. The Applicant argued that detailed analysis was necessary to confirm component identity and potential infringement. However, the Court ultimately rejected the application for preservation of evidence.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc, TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Entreprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V, TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by TP-Link and Lianzhou to change the language of proceedings from German to English for an infringement case involving Huawei. The court balanced the interests of both parties, concluding that the Defendants' structural disadvantage in preparing their defense outweighed the Claimant's preference for the local language. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to procedural fairness and efficiency in complex international disputes.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures, specifically an inspection of a competitor's product (MORCELLIX) exhibited at MEDICA, to assess potential infringement of its laparoscopic morcellator patent. The UPC Local Division granted the request for evidence preservation and inspection but rejected the broader application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the court's willingness to facilitate early technical investigations necessary for complex medical device cases.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Local Division permitted Leap Tools Inc. to withdraw its infringement action against Wizart LLC (Defendant 2). The court found that because service of process had not been completed and Defendant 2 appeared non-existent or unserviceable, it lacked a legitimate interest in continuing the lawsuit. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC regarding multi-defendant actions when one party becomes practically unreachable.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG sought provisional measures to inspect the respondent's automated cable processing machine, 'BZW-3005,' at a trade fair in Munich, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 024 099 B1. The claimant argued that prior attempts to examine the machine were impossible due to security and access restrictions. However, the Local Division ultimately rejected the application for inspection and evidence preservation. This decision highlights the stringent procedural hurdles required to obtain urgent investigative measures within the UPC framework.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed an application for inspection and evidence preservation concerning EP 2 983 864 B1. The court granted the claimant access to the unredacted expert report following the on-site investigation at the respondent's trade show booth. However, this order is conditional: the claimant must file a main infringement action against STEROS within a strict deadline, otherwise, the preservation measures will lapse.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
In this preliminary ruling, the UPC confirmed its exclusive jurisdiction over a pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving nintedanib. The Defendant attempted to challenge the Court's competence by arguing that the dispute was administrative, stemming from a national health authority's communication. However, the UPC rejected this objection, clarifying that the core issue is a private enforcement action based on the threat of infringement, not an administrative review. This decision allows the case to proceed to the substantive merits phase.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
This UPC decision confirms the withdrawal of an infringement action initiated by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was mutually agreed upon by both parties, indicating a likely settlement outside of court. Crucially, the Court also addressed procedural matters, granting confidentiality to the sensitive annexes and ordering a significant partial reimbursement of the claimant's legal costs.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et al.
In this procedural decision, the UPC Court of First Instance granted the withdrawal of an infringement action brought by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC against several chemical companies. The withdrawal was based on a mutual agreement between the parties, indicating that the dispute was resolved outside of court. Additionally, the court addressed requests for confidentiality regarding settlement details and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the initial court fees to the Claimant.
Organon Heist B.V. v.Genentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the review of prior 'ex parte' orders for evidence preservation and inspection concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The court provided crucial procedural guidance, outlining a rigorous two-step assessment process for reviewing these types of orders under R. 197.3 RoP. It also clarified the legal standard required to prove 'about to be infringed' in relation to subsequent infringement proceedings. This decision is highly significant for practitioners managing evidence gathering and risk assessment within the UPC framework.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division rejected Surftown GmbH's attempt to extend critical deadlines in a complex infringement/revocation case involving wave machine technology. The Defendants argued that delays caused by confidentiality procedures unfairly disadvantaged them compared to the Claimant. However, the Court firmly maintained that extensions must be based on genuine legal complications or hindrances, not simply on comparative timing advantages. This decision reinforces the UPC's commitment to strict adherence to procedural timelines and efficient case management.
Organon Heist B.V. v.Genentech, Inc.
This UPC Local Division order addresses the procedural framework for reviewing prior 'ex parte' orders related to evidence preservation and inspection in a pharmaceutical patent case (EP 3 401 335 B1). The court detailed a rigorous two-stage review process, ensuring that both initial applications and all subsequent party submissions are considered when assessing the validity of the original order. Crucially, the ruling clarified the legal threshold for 'about to be infringed,' setting a high bar requiring demonstrable risk of future infringement. This decision provides significant guidance on managing evidence gathering in complex UPC litigation.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
In a critical procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the challenges of serving foreign defendants in urgent UPC proceedings. The court ruled that if formal service attempts via international conventions stall or fail, and all other reasonable efforts have been exhausted, the steps taken by the applicant can be deemed sufficient for proper legal notice under Rule 275.2 RoP. This decision provides significant procedural relief to applicants facing unresponsive foreign jurisdictions in high-stakes IP litigation.