European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 13 of 84 · 2,007 total
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd., Meril GmbH, Meril Italy S.r.l. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Meril entities sought revocation of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 4 151 181 B1, which relates to a radially collapsible and expandable prosthetic heart valve with an outer skirt having axial slack. Edwards counterclaimed for infringement based on Meril's 'Octacor System' and 'Octapro System' products. The court rejected the revocation action, maintained the patent as amended by Auxiliary Request 2, and found infringement, granting an injunction (with an exception for XL-size valves exceeding 30 mm in diameter) along with information, delivery, and penalty payment orders.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought provisional measures against Niche Biomedical, Inc. before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 421 081 B1 (relating to a neuromodulation system) by Niche Biomedical's 'ExaStim' stimulation system in Germany and France. The court rejected the application for interim measures, along with the auxiliary requests based on alternative claim formulations, holding that such auxiliary requests signal doubts about the validity of the patent as granted and are generally inadmissible in Art. 62 EPGÜ proceedings. The respondent's application for preliminary cost reimbursement of €168,000 was also rejected for lack of substantiation.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation following a 4 April 2025 order requiring the three Meril defendants to jointly and severally bear the costs of the proceedings. Edwards sought reimbursement of EUR 774,696.49 in costs of representation, court fees, travel expenses, and other costs, while Meril contested the necessity and proportionality of various travel-related expenses. The Local Division Munich, through Judge-Rapporteur Dr. Matthias Zigann, held that UPC representatives have broad discretion in determining how to effectively represent their parties, and that the disputed travel costs were marginal relative to the overall costs, warranting award at the judge's discretion.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, which relates to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. Defendant 1 reached a settlement with HP and agreed not to defend against the main motions, while service to Defendant 2 in China had not been completed. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order by default against Defendant 1, granting the preliminary injunction, information orders, and penalty payments, while reserving decision on costs and the application against Defendant 2.
AX Wireless, LLC v.Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, and Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V.
AX Wireless, LLC filed a patent infringement action against four Xiaomi entities before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3072324. The Defendants requested an extension and alignment of procedural deadlines for all four Defendants so that a consolidated defence could be filed, and the Claimant consented. The Court granted the request, aligning the deadlines for all Defendants.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
Abbott Diabetes Care sought provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court against Sinocare and Menarini concerning European patent EP 4 344 633 for 'Analyte Sensor Assemblies' related to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems. Abbott alleged that the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, manufactured by Sinocare and distributed by Menarini in Europe, infringed its patent. The court granted the preliminary injunction, finding Abbott had established a strong prima facie case of infringement, the patent appeared valid, urgency existed, and the balance of interests favored Abbott.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to redacted versions of documents filed in the main proceedings between Insulet Corporation and EOFLOW Co., Ltd. concerning EP4201327. The Judge Rapporteur partially granted the request, ordering the parties to provide only the redacted application and objection submissions, but denying access to the exhibits attached to those submissions.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o. and Others
This decision concerns the withdrawal of a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 387 547 before the Local Chamber Munich. The defendants, who had filed a counterclaim for revocation against Brita SE's patent infringement action, applied to withdraw their counterclaim after the chamber had already issued its decision but before the appeal deadline expired. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and held that each party bears its own costs.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company filed an application for provisional measures against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co. and Andreas Rentmeister e.K. for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. When service via the Chinese Central Authority under the Hague Convention failed after three and a half months—with Chinese authorities claiming the defendant did not exist at the provided address—the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered that the steps already taken constituted good service under Rule 275.2 RoP, deeming service effective as of the date of the order.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Before the Local Chamber Mannheim, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. sought to withdraw its infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning EP 3 567 731, while MediaTek Germany GmbH sought to withdraw its counterclaim for revocation. Both parties consented to the respective withdrawals and declared they would not make cost applications. The court permitted both withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This is a cost decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan) concerning cost compensation following a prior decision on the merits dated 22 July 2025 in revocation and infringement proceedings regarding EP4201327. Insulet Corporation, as the prevailing party, sought an additional EUR 197,587.50 in costs beyond the provisional EUR 200,000 already awarded. The court partially granted the request, excluding redacted costs, personal scheduling costs, enforcement-phase costs, and an Italian law expert opinion, and applying a 30% reduction to costs incurred after 2 May 2025 due to reduced case complexity following the Court of Appeal's PI decision.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc. & Wizart LLC
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 859 566, in which the court permitted alternative service of the Statement of claim on Defendant 2 (Wizart LLC) under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure. After two failed attempts to serve Wizart LLC at its original Wilmington, Delaware address and at the registered agent's address in Newark, the court authorized service on the CEO at his business address in Gdańsk, Poland, finding that such service was permissible under Polish law.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brodrene Hartmann A/S) sued Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 concerning a display and distribution package for eggs, valid in Germany, France, and the Netherlands. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court dismissed the infringement action, partially revoked the patent (revoking claims 1, 6, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-8 while maintaining claims 9-13), and allocated costs accordingly.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CoA_699/2025) concerning penalty payments for non-compliance with orders from a final decision of the Local Division Mannheim dated 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023). The Court of Appeal provided extensive guidance on the system of penalties under Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP, and ruled that the appeal was only partly successful, setting aside order 1 and the cost decision while maintaining orders 2 and 3 in slightly limited form. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs in both instances.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o.a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the admissibility of the Claimant's unsolicited submission of 1 September 2025. The court admitted the translation of main requests and clarifications regarding direct infringement auxiliary requests, but rejected as inadmissible the new auxiliary requests concerning indirect infringement, finding that the Claimant failed to justify late filing under R. 36 RoP.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH and Others
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court upheld a judge-rapporteur's order denying the claimant's application for leave to change its claim to add an auxiliary request asserting infringement by equivalence for additional patent features. The defendants had requested a panel review under R. 333 RoP, arguing the reasoning was disadvantageous to them. The panel found the review admissible but rejected it on the merits, confirming that extending the equivalence argument to features 1.9 and 1.10 did not alter the nature or scope of the dispute.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. The defendants' representatives demonstrated that one of their lead attorneys was unable to attend the scheduled oral hearing for personal reasons, and that substitution was not feasible due to the short notice and complexity of the case. The court granted the defendants' request and cancelled the oral hearing originally scheduled for October 16, 2025.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited o.a.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, in which the Claimant Ona Patents SL sought review of a case management order regarding the scheduling of an interim conference. The Claimant argued that an interim conference was needed to discuss the relevance of arguments from related proceedings against other defendants that had been settled. The court dismissed the request as admissible but unfounded, holding that the decision to hold an interim conference lies within the discretion of the Presiding Judge and that the terminated parallel proceedings are legally independent of the present case.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This is a preliminary order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP3407524. Vivo filed a Preliminary Objection arguing that the UPC lacks jurisdiction over the case because Sun Patent Trust requested a ruling on a FRAND issue as a main claim rather than as a defence. The court denied Vivo's request to postpone the filing of its Statement of Defence, finding no exceptional circumstances to derogate from procedural efficiency.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTeK group companies for infringement of European Patent EP 3 972 309 B1, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court declared claims 1 and 11 of the patent null and void for lack of disclosure of origin (the subject matter extending beyond the content of the earlier parent application), dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
WIRPLAST Więcek Spółka Jawna v.Vilpe Oy
Revocation action brought by WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (Poland) against Vilpe Oy (Finland) concerning European patent EP 2 649 380 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. Following an interim conference held on 9 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued procedural orders regarding the timeliness of submissions, translation requirements for evidence documents, reordering of auxiliary requests, and the admission of a warning letter into the proceedings. The oral hearing was confirmed for 3 December 2025 in Munich, with the value of the case set at EUR 630,000.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1, which relates to metal sintering preparations for connecting electronic components. The court maintained the patent in amended form, partially allowing the revocation counterclaim, but dismissed the infringement action. Costs were split 40% to the defendant and 60% to the plaintiff.
Motorola Mobility LLC v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED
Motorola Mobility LLC sued ASUSTek group companies for infringement of European patent EP 3 972 309, which relates to methods and devices for implementing carrier-specific changes as part of a connection reconfiguration affecting security keys in 5G communications. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Chamber Munich found that claims 1 and 11 of the patent lacked sufficient disclosure in the earlier parent application, declared those claims invalid, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Motorola to bear the costs.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division of the Hague) found that EP 2 432 351 B1, relating to a system for securing shelf accessories to a shelf, was valid and infringed by Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP). The court granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, and damages against BSRP, while dismissing BSRP's counterclaim for revocation and declaring its counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement inadmissible.