European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 11 of 84 · 2,007 total
TP-Link Systems Inc et al. v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted an application by the defendants (TP-Link entities and Lianzhou International) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. concerning EP 3678321. The court found that, considering all relevant circumstances including the defendants' internal working language, strict UPC time constraints, and the need for rapid coordination among multiple defendants, the position of the defendants prevailed over the claimant's interests. The order was issued without requiring specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc. v.Molecular Instruments, Inc.
Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc., proprietor of European patents EP1910572 and EP2500439 relating to RNAscope in situ hybridization technology for detecting nucleic acids in individual cells, sued Molecular Instruments, Inc. for patent infringement regarding its HCR (Hybridization Chain Reaction) products. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found both patents valid, dismissing the Defendant's counterclaim for revocation, but held that the Defendant's HCR products did not infringe the patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a laparoscopic morcellator, filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Applicant sought measures at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, suspecting that the Defendant's exhibited disposable morcellator was a slavish copy of LiNA's Xcise™ product and infringed the patent. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert, subject to confidentiality measures.
Komax Holding AG v.Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
Komax Holding AG, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 024 099 B1 concerning cable processing devices, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. at the Productronica trade fair in Munich. Komax suspected that BOZHIWANG's 'BZW-3005' machine infringed claims 1, 7, and 9 of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection of the machine and seizure of related documents at the trade fair stand, subject to extensive safeguards for the respondent's trade secrets.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC
Leap Tools Inc. filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 859 566 against Wizart Inc. and Wizart LLC before the Düsseldorf Local Division. After difficulties in serving Wizart LLC and representations from Wizart Inc. that Wizart LLC was a non-existent company, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action against Wizart LLC. The Court permitted the partial withdrawal, finding that Wizart LLC had no legitimate interest in a decision on the merits since service had not yet been completed.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed a patent infringement action against Zentiva Portugal before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), based on a threat of infringement following an INFARMED communication. Zentiva raised a preliminary objection arguing the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the dispute involved an administrative matter falling under Portuguese administrative courts. The Court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC has exclusive competence over European patent infringement actions and that the dispute between two private parties did not concern an administrative matter.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (under Article 60 EPGÜ) at the trade fair stand of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the EMO Messe Hannover, in preparation for a main infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. After the inspection was executed and the court-appointed expert produced a detailed description, the respondent was given the opportunity to assert confidentiality interests but did not do so. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, lifted the protective order in relation to the applicant, and set the deadline for filing the main action.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC filed infringement proceedings before the Local Division The Hague concerning European Patent EP3286270 against six defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities. No statement of defence or counterclaim was filed by any defendant, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, ordered confidentiality of certain annexes, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. initiated infringement proceedings before the Unified Patent Court Local Division in The Hague against Troy Chemical Company B.V. and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. After the Defendants failed to file any statement of defence or counterclaim, the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings, and the Claimant subsequently requested withdrawal of the action with the Defendants' consent. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared certain confidential annexes restricted to the parties and the Court, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€96,600) to the Claimant.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under R. 197.3 RoP regarding orders to preserve evidence and for inspection issued ex parte in favor of Genentech and Roche concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon, who were planning to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed with Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report.
Genentech, Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and N.V. Organon
This case concerns review proceedings under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure regarding two ex parte orders (an Order to Preserve Evidence and an Order for Inspection) issued on 30 May 2025 in connection with European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers Perjeta® (pertuzumab), a cancer medicine for HER2-positive breast cancer. Organon, which planned to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta® developed by Shanghai Henlius Biotech, sought review of these orders. The Local Division Brussels confirmed the orders, dismissed Organon's requests related to the execution of the orders as inadmissible, and established a schedule for the appointed experts to deliver their report and for the parties to initiate infringement proceedings.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd. and Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd.
This case concerns a review of a confidentiality order before the Local Division Munich regarding EP 2 147 029. The defendants sought to exclude two individuals from the confidentiality club on the grounds that they were not employees of the claimant but of related entities within the Syensqo group. The panel confirmed the confidentiality order, holding that Rule 262A.6 RoP does not require membership to be limited to employees of the party and that employees of the party's economic unit may be admitted to the confidentiality club.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court, related to main proceedings UPC_CFI_500/2025 concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, but the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application and declared the proceedings terminated without a costs decision.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Anordnung
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a light emitting diode (LED) of the flip-chip type. The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's finding that the patent was invalid due to added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) because claim 1, directed to an LED with only a single mesa, extended beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, which protects a loft/attic staircase (Dachbodentreppe). Dolle A/S, the patent proprietor, sued four FAKRO group companies for infringement regarding the 'GREENSTEP LME Energy Efficient' and 'GREENSTEP LMT Super Thermo' products, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The court largely upheld the infringement claim, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, information, recall, destruction, and damages, with the defendants bearing 90% of the costs of the main action.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., which relates to a flip-chip type light emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision from the Local Division Düsseldorf, confirming that the patent is invalid due to inadmissible extension (added matter) because the claimed LED with only a single mesa extends beyond the content of the earlier application. The appeal was dismissed and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.