European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 12 of 92 · 2,185 total
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH filed infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) regarding EP4108769, which relates to methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration (TFF). Alongside the main infringement action, CureVac filed a Rule 190 RoP application seeking an order compelling Moderna to produce confidential technical evidence (CTDs and technical data sheets) to demonstrate infringement. The court
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.TRUMPF Laser UK Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision concerning an application by IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG (now trading as IPG Photonics GmbH & Co. KG) to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of the appeals, finding that TRUMPF Laser UK Limited had no legitimate interest in a court decision since the appeal had not yet been formally served. IPG Laser had filed the appeal solely to preserve the statutory deadline and did not intend to pursue it substantively.
ParTec AG v.Lenovo Global Technology Germany GmbH, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, and Lenovo Group Limited
ParTec AG, proprietor of EP 3 743 812 B1 concerning dynamic allocation of heterogeneous compute resources, sought provisional measures against three Lenovo entities alleging indirect infringement through an NVIDIA-integrated stack featuring the Expert Parallel Load Balancer (EPLB). The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, holding that ParTec failed to provide a detailed and substantiated account of the relevant market situation prior to the entry of the allegedly infringing product, and that granting provisional measures would alter rather than preserve the status quo. The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs, and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
Other
Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH v.Nera Innovations Ltd.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in cross-appeals between Nera Innovations Ltd. and several Xiaomi entities regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The underlying dispute involves an infringement action filed by Nera against Xiaomi before the Local Division Hamburg, along with Xiaomi's counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The order addresses procedural matters arising from the appeal proceedings, including the handling of auxiliary requests and prior art citations raised by Xiaomi in its invalidity attacks.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
Appeal RoP220.1
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
Application for a review of the Registrar's decision
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Application to leave to appeal a cost decision (RoP221)
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Application RoP262.1 (b)
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This case concerns an appeal by Huawei Technologies against a decision of the Local Division Munich regarding an application by Quinn Emanuel for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The underlying infringement proceedings between Huawei and MediaTek had been terminated before Quinn Emanuel's application was filed. The Court of Appeal addressed whether decisions of the Rapporteur under Rule 262.1(b) RoP can be reviewed by the panel under Rule 333 RoP, and confirmed that the legal remedy against the panel's decision is appeal under Rules 220.2 and 220.3 RoP.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (MediaTek Inc., and MediaTek Deutschland GmbH) v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
This appeal concerns a request for inspection of court files under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Quinn Emanuel sought access to certain submissions filed in a terminated infringement case between Huawei and MediaTek before the Local Division Munich. The Reporting Judge initially granted the request, subject to redactions, and the second panel of the Local Division confirmed that decision, finding Huawei's review request inadmissible and unfounded. Huawei then sought discretionary review by the Court of Appeal, which issued this order addressing procedural matters regarding the appeal.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
Generic Order
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited, GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited, GC Aesthetics Finance Limited, Romed NV
Infringement Action
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
Infringement Action
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-26) under reference UPC_0F52BA837A, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation appeared in dispute with Meril Gmbh concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited, Nagor Limited, GC Aesthetics Management Limited, GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited, GC Aesthetics (France) SAS, EuroSilicone SAS, GC Aesthetics GmbH, GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U., Global Co
This Order II concerns an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC proceedings (infringement action UPC_CFI_1357/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_629/2025) relating to European Patent EP 3 107 487 B1. The applicants sought an order requiring LABS to produce specific evidence, including sales figures for Motiva SilkSurface implants, physical samples manufactured before the priority date, and various promotional and marketing materials. The Court granted the 'Primary Order' requests (with the exception of request I.c and an adjustment to request I.b), ordering LABS to produce the requested evidence within 21 days, while emphasizing the need to align evidence-gathering requests between parallel UPC and UK proceedings for procedural efficiency and proportionality.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd a.o.
The defendants applied under Rule 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (established in Taiwan), to provide security for costs of the proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 346 616. The Local Division Munich held that enforcing a cost decision in Taiwan would be at least unduly burdensome, as neither Taiwanese legislation nor any international agreement provides certainty for such enforcement. The court ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 200,000 within six weeks, but rejected the request for security concerning a counterclaim for revocation that had not yet been filed.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH a. o.
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
Revocation Action