European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 13 of 67 · 1,592 total
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's attempt to introduce new claims related to indirect patent infringement outside of the established case management framework. The Court strictly enforced procedural rules, finding that these new requests constituted an impermissible amendment to the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance for patentees to adhere rigorously to the UPC's procedural timetable and filing requirements when seeking expanded relief.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for implementing penalty clauses under the Rules of Procedure. The case involved an appeal concerning cost decisions related to non-compliance penalties set by a Local Division panel. The court reinforced that penalty orders must be explicitly stated in the operative part of a decision, not just mentioned in the grounds. This ruling provides crucial guidance for practitioners on how to structure and enforce compliance obligations within UPC proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH
In this procedural case, Dolby International AB initiated proceedings against Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order cancelling the previously scheduled oral hearing due to unforeseen circumstances involving the defendants' legal representation. A new date for the proceedings has been tentatively set for February 4, 2026.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge regarding the scope of infringement claims in a stroller patent case (EP 1 905 615). The Defendants challenged the Claimant's attempt to extend its argument from literal infringement to equivalence for additional features. The Panel ultimately upheld the initial order, confirming that expanding the equivalence argument does not fundamentally alter the nature or scope of the dispute. This ruling provides clarity on how the doctrine of equivalence can be applied procedurally within UPC case management.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This preliminary order in a SEP infringement case highlights the UPC's commitment to procedural efficiency. The court denied a request by VIVO Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. to postpone its Statement of Defence filing deadline pending the resolution of a Preliminary Objection concerning jurisdiction and FRAND defenses. The ruling reinforces that defendants must not use POs as a mechanism to unduly delay core proceedings, especially when the underlying defense (FRAND) would be raised anyway.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited
In this procedural order, Ona Patents SL sought to review a previous court decision regarding an interim conference, arguing that related parallel proceedings had generated new relevant arguments. The UPC Local Division dismissed the request, emphasizing the legal independence of different cases within the Unified Patent Court framework. This ruling reinforces strict adherence to case management procedures and limits the ability of parties to introduce late or external material simply to influence scheduling.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
This UPC decision is an interim order from the Central Division in a revocation action concerning EP 2 649 380. The court confirmed the oral hearing date for December 3, 2025, and addressed several procedural matters. Notably, the claimant was ordered to provide translations of specific prior art documents (D2 and D4), while the defendant was allowed to re-order its auxiliary requests.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a mixed action before the UPC, including an infringement claim and a counterclaim for revocation against Vibrantz GmbH concerning EP 3 215 288. The court ultimately dismissed the infringement lawsuit and rejected all other pending applications. While the core dispute involved technical aspects of metal sintering preparations used in electronics, the decision also touched upon complex procedural issues regarding the binding effect of national invalidity judgments across various jurisdictions.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
In a significant ruling concerning retail merchandising technology, the UPC found that HL Display AB's patent covering systems for securing shelf accessories was validly infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s products. While granting the infringement claim and ordering substantial damages, the court also issued a key procedural holding: counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement are inadmissible if the claimant has not previously asserted the patent against that specific product. This decision reinforces strict adherence to assertion requirements within UPC proceedings.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc; ASUS Computer GmbH; ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek and its subsidiaries regarding the use of their 5G-enabled devices, alleging that these products utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid for a wide range of UPC member states, providing a significant defense for the defendants.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG brought a combined infringement and revocation action against Vibrantz GmbH concerning the European Patent EP 3 215 288, which covers metal sintering preparations used in electronics. The Local Division of the UPC ultimately dismissed the infringement claim and rejected all other related applications. Despite the loss for the claimant, the decision provided important commentary on how national law governs the binding effect of prior national revocation judgments within the UPC framework.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc, ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC brought an infringement action against ASUSTek-affiliated companies regarding their 5G products, alleging that the devices utilized technology covered by EP 3 972 309. The Munich Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. Crucially, the court also declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent invalid in numerous UPC member states, providing a dual victory for the defendants.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation
In this UPC case, Total Semiconductor sued Texas Instruments for infringing a patent related to intelligent interrupt distribution in multiprocessor systems. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. While the decision contained important procedural rulings regarding how claimants must substantiate disputed features and limitations on late amendments during oral hearings, it did not reach a definitive finding of infringement or validity.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV, effectively ending both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court formally validated the terms of the settlement regarding cost distribution. Crucially, it ordered each party to receive a refund of €2,000 related to the termination of their respective actions.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
In a procedural decision, the UPC Local Division of Milan dismissed an infringement action brought by Hypertherm Inc. against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. The case was terminated because both parties had reached a comprehensive out-of-court settlement covering all disputes and litigation costs. Crucially, the court confirmed the refund of 60% of the initial court fees to the claimant under Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP, demonstrating how procedural rules facilitate efficient case closure upon amicable resolution.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This decision from the Brussels Local Division confirms a settlement agreement between Cretes NV and Hyler BV, thereby terminating both the infringement and validity proceedings. The court also addressed the complex issue of cost allocation following the mediation, confirming the parties' agreement on how costs would be distributed. This case highlights the practical application of UPC rules regarding settlements (R. 365) and the subsequent recovery or reduction of judicial fees.
Dolby International AB v.Roku Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement proceedings initiated by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. Roku argued that the EPC's structure violated fundamental EU rights, particularly concerning judicial independence and jurisdiction. The Court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that jurisdictional challenges must adhere strictly to the enumerated grounds in the Rules of Procedure. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework governing the UPC's competence and administrative flexibility.
Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against the rejection of its opposition filings. Roku had argued that the UPC's structure and jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights, specifically concerning judicial independence and the competence allocation under the EPC. The court firmly rejected these arguments, emphasizing that all grounds for opposition must be within the scope defined by Rule 19.1 VerfO. The ruling reinforces the established legal framework of the UPC regarding its jurisdictional powers and administrative flexibility.
Dolby International AB v.Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc.
This UPC appeal decision addressed procedural challenges raised by Roku against infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. Roku argued that the UPC's jurisdiction violated fundamental EU rights and challenged the court's organizational structure. The Court firmly dismissed these arguments, clarifying that jurisdictional objections must adhere to specific grounds under the Rules of Procedure. The ruling also affirmed the Administrative Committee's authority to adapt the UPC's structure as necessary.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent and ordered Belkin to recall, remove, and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided significant legal guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and defined the specific conditions under which company directors can be held liable for patent infringement.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska, Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium, SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V, LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed requests for partial withdrawal of an infringement action (UPC_CFI_819/2024) concerning EP 3 296 274. The Claimant successfully sought to withdraw the action against Defendants 7 through 9, and these defendants simultaneously withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. This decision allowed the main infringement proceedings to continue against the remaining parties (Defendants 1-6), while formally closing the dispute with Defendants 7-9.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
In this appellate decision, the UPC addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the patent's scope while issuing a significant injunction requiring Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products. Crucially, the ruling provided detailed guidance on liability, particularly limiting the personal responsibility of company directors unless they actively participate in or knowingly facilitate infringement.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited
This UPC appellate decision addressed both patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation concerning an inductive power transfer system. The court affirmed the validity of the core infringement finding, ordering Belkin to recall and destroy infringing products under Art. 64 EPGÜ. Crucially, the ruling provided significant guidance on interpreting 'offering' in commercial contexts and established clear legal boundaries regarding the liability of corporate directors for patent infringement.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this provisional measures case, Centripetal Limited sought a Saisie order to monitor Palo Alto Networks' network security solution for potential infringement of EP 3 281 580. Although the Court of Appeal had previously allowed an ex-parte hearing and referred the matter back, the CFI ultimately revoked the Saisie order and rejected the application for preserving evidence. The court emphasized its right to review provisional measures based on new facts, even after a referral from the CoA.