European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 12 of 84 · 2,007 total
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This is a procedural order from the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3812870. Belparts Group N.V. requested under Rule 340.1 RoP that its counterclaim for infringement pending before the CD Paris be heard together with its infringement action pending before the LD Munich. The court rejected the request, finding that allowing it would still result in multiple oral hearings and multiple decisions concerning the same patent, with infringement and revocation actions not being heard and decided at the same time.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent EP1969839. The court set the value of the dispute at €12 million, granted a confidentiality club, and addressed various procedural matters including late-filed prior art references and parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against multiple entities of the Geely Group concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333, which relates to devices and methods for efficient allocation of resources in a mobile communication system. Several defendants filed objections under R. 19 of the Rules of Procedure, challenging both the international jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court and the local jurisdiction of the Mannheim Local Chamber. The court rejected all objections, finding that the international jurisdiction was established and that the joint action against all group-affiliated defendants was permissible before the Mannheim Local Chamber.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Vivo's request under R. 9.3 RoP to stay the first instance proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing its Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation. Vivo had sought the stay pending the outcome of its preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over Sun Patent Trust's active FRAND rate determination claim and pending the appeal concerning the confidentiality order. The Court held that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a preliminary objection decision, and that as a general rule, it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays of proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2 (relating to an occlusion instrument) by the MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. The court rejected the application for provisional measures, finding that the requirements for such measures were not met, and ordered Occlutech to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Oerlikon's request for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and Rule 158 RoP in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 145 848. The Court rejected the request to include first instance costs (already awarded by the Milan Local Division) in the security, but ordered Bhagat to provide a security of €19,000 for appeal costs within 10 days of notification, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-authorized bank.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against three Vivo entities concerning European patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction over the FRAND-related claims and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and deferred the question of admissibility of the FRAND terms claim (A.II) to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Anr.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted an order for inspection and evidence preservation in favor of Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V., the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device. The applicant sought inspection of the respondents' 'InverJet' counter-current swimming device exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne to gather evidence of alleged infringement of claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 of the patent. The court ordered the inspection to be carried out by an expert and court bailiff, with detailed measurements, photographs, and potentially disassembly, subject to various procedural safeguards.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a preliminary objection arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because Sun Patent's request for a FRAND determination constituted a standalone claim outside the scope of Article 32 UPCA, and that the Paris Local Division lacked internal competence. The Court rejected the preliminary objection in its entirety, holding that the Paris Local Division had internal competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA, and ruling that the admissibility of the FRAND-related claim (A.II) under Article 32.1 UPCA would be addressed in the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
Skechers USA Deutschland GmbH & Others v.FAST IP, LLC
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted an application by the Skechers defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action concerning EP4003084 (titled "Rapid-entry foot wear having a stabilizer and an elastic element"). The court held that, under Article 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP, fairness considerations and the position of the defendants weighed in favor of using the language of the patent, particularly given that all defendants belong to the California-based Skechers group with English as their internal working language.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2448225. The order summarizes decisions taken during an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing various procedural matters including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence and amendments, and the filing of further submissions. The judge-rapporteur issued orders on the admission of patent sale and assignment agreements, claim amendments, prior art documents, and inventive step objections, while referring certain admissibility questions to the panel for final decision.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the Defendants' application for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 614 263. The Defendants argued that Claimant ParTec AG faced severe liquidity problems based on press reports, while the Claimants contended they had sufficient assets to cover any adverse costs award. The judge rapporteur ordered Claimant ParTec AG to provide security in the amount of EUR 80,500.00 within six weeks, either by deposit or bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551. Following an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued decisions on various procedural matters, including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence, amendments to the patent claims, and the introduction of prior art documents. The order admits the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement, both rounds of patent amendments under Rules 30.1 and 30.2 RoP, and prior art documents D6 through D11, while granting the Claimant the right to comment on the newly introduced documents and validity attacks.
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
Unified Patent Court decision.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2726230 B1 concerning a method and apparatus for continuously producing lattice girders, brought an infringement action against AWM s.r.l. and Schnell s.p.a. regarding their Girderflex and Girderflex VSX machines. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation, arguing that AWM had publicly disclosed the same technical solution through prior JIT machines before the patent's priority date. The Milan Local Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Progress to bear the costs.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll v.First Plast France, First Plast S.R.L., First Corporation, Plasticos First Iberica S.L.
Raccords et Plastiques Nicoll (RPN), a French company specializing in plastic connection and drainage systems, sued four entities of the First group for infringement of European patent EP3272938 concerning its Connecto®invisible channel grid. RPN alleged that the defendants' Ghost channel grid covers and Pratiko channel gutters infringed claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the patent, both literally and by equivalence. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of RPN's infringement claims, finding that the alleged equivalent function did not arise from the patent's characteristics and was not easily deducible by a person skilled in the art, and ordered RPN to bear all costs and pay a provisional sum of 70,000 euros to the defendants.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd et al.
This case concerns an action for infringement of European Patent No. 2 791 402 B1 (relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene Multifilament Yarn) brought by Avient Protective Materials B.V. against two Chinese group companies. When service of process via the Hague Service Convention to China remained unconfirmed for over 3.5 months, the claimant sought alternative service under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the application, ordering that service could be effected by a German bailiff at the A+A Trade Fair in Düsseldorf upon the most senior staff member of the defendants present at their exhibition stand.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
The Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court consolidated a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation brought by bioMérieux group companies against European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1 (owned by Labrador Diagnostics LLC), concerning modular point-of-care devices. The Court rejected the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended according to Auxiliary Request 3, finding that the Main Request and Auxiliary Requests 1 and 2 contained added subject-matter. Costs were apportioned equitably, with bioMérieux ordered to pay two-thirds of Labrador's legal costs (EUR 400,000), and Labrador's request for confidentiality of the agreed costs amount was dismissed.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.Sovex Systems B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. initiated a patent infringement action before the Local Division Mannheim against seven defendants concerning EP 2 563 695 B1. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging international jurisdiction over Hemtech (domiciled in Bosnia and Herzegovina), competence over five Dutch defendants, and the competence of the Mannheim division, seeking transfer to The Hague. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that international jurisdiction and competence were properly established, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini alleging infringement of European patent EP 3 988 471 (relating to displays for a medical device) by Sinocare's GlucoMen iCan continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system, which Menarini distributes in Europe. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) dismissed the application, finding that the defendants' CGM system more likely than not does not infringe independent claims 1 and 14 of the patent because event data icons are not included in the timeline graph as required by the claims. Abbott was ordered to pay EUR 400,000 as an interim award of costs.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
Amycel LLC v.XXX
Amycel LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 1 993 350 B2 relating to brown mushrooms for commercial production, brought an infringement action against a Polish defendant for selling a competing brown mushroom strain called 'Cayene'. The defendant failed to file a timely Statement of Defence, leading to a decision by default after a Rule 275 order. The Court confirmed the orders previously granted in provisional measures proceedings, finding that the mushroom strain was not excluded from patentability under Article 53(b) EPC and that infringement was established.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Ors.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1. Following settlement negotiations, the Claimant and Defendants 1–4 reached a comprehensive settlement agreement, and Defendant 5 agreed to the withdrawal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs, and granted the Claimant a 60% reimbursement of court fees (€6,600).