European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 13 of 92 · 2,185 total
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Infringement Action
1. Natural person: initial case 2. Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co. Ltd. (Streithelferin): joined the case later v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a revocation action against European Patent 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), maintaining the patent in its Art. 105a EPC-limited form. The plaintiff and intervener Chainzone Technology had sought full revocation for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, unallowable extension, and insufficient disclosure. The court held that the subject-matter of claim 1 in both the granted and limited forms was patentable over all cited p
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC. , JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC and COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE ANDAUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP294090. The defendants (OpenAI, Adobe, Truepic, Joint Development Foundation Projects, and C2PA) filed requests to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent modification request from KEEEX's June 5, 2026 memorandum. The judge-rapporteur partially granted and partially rejected these requests, declaring certain infringement-related
Robert Bosch (multiple entities) v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the competence of the Paris Local Division to hear a patent infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Bosch entities. Bosch had filed preliminary objections arguing that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—requiring a commercial relationship between defendants and that the action relate to the same alleged infringement—were not met. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that both conditions were satisfied because the Bosch defendants belonged to the same group and were involved in the design, production, and marketing of the allegedly infringing wiper products, and because the products at issue appeared to be substantially the same.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS & Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside orders of the Paris Central Division that had held it lacked competence and referred the infringement action to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal held that the Paris Central Division has competence to hear an infringement action brought against multiple defendants, some of whom are established outside the territory of the Contracting Member States, where there is a commercial relationship among the defendants and the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The Court clarified that the third subparagraph of Article 33(1) UPCA does not constitute an exception to the competence of local and regional divisions but rather provides for central division competence in specific circumstances.
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
Appeal RoP220.2
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
Revocation Action
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
Appeal RoP220.2
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
ILLUMINA, INC. v.Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
Infringement Action
ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD. v.VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by six Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Local Division Paris confirming its jurisdiction over a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage concerning EP 4 144 599. The Court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA — commercial link between defendants and same alleged infringement — were satisfied, as membership in the same group of companies can establish a commercial link and the alleg
UPM Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. a. o.
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd. (China), VD Solutions GmbH (Germany), and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1. The decision addresses key procedural and substantive issues including limitation periods under Article 72 UPCA, the distinction between financial compensation claims (subject to a five-year limitation period) and injunctive relief (not subject to limitation), as well as questions of consent, forfeiture, de facto business succession, and exhaustion of rights. An oral hearing was held on May 19, 2026, and the judgment was rendered on June 22, 2026.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Acer Inc. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 2 661 892, while the Acer parties filed a counterclaim for revocation of the same patent. Both parties subsequently sought to withdraw their respective claims and requests for partial refund of court fees. The Local Chamber Munich allowed the withdrawals of both the main infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered partial refunds of court fees in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed appeals (UPC-CoA-4/2026 and UPC-CoA-13/2026) concerning the jurisdiction of the Central Division (Paris section) over an infringement action brought by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, some domiciled in Contracting Member States and others outside. The Court of Appeal reversed the Central Division's orders that had declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division, holding that Article 33(1), third
ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v.WEPA NEDERLAND B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag sought review of an ex parte order for preservation of evidence dated 17 April 2026, concerning European Patent EP3289139, against WEPA Nederland B.V. The defendant WEPA requested review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The single judge denied the review, finding that no obligation for employees to answer questions could be derived from the order, that the order adequately set a time limit for initiating proceedings on the merits, and that urgency was properly assumed given the digital nature of documents and the defendant's membership in a group of companies.
- ILLUMINA, INC. v.- Element Biosciences, Inc - Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V. - I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
ORDER
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Düsseldorf Local Division's order rejecting Occlutech's application for provisional measures against Lepu, finding that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders infringe claim 1 of European Patent EP 1 998 686. The Court of Appeal held that a braiding made from a single wire that is cut during the manufacturing process qualifies as a 'braiding of thin wires or threads' within the meaning of the patent claim. Lepu was ordered to cease commercialization of the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day for breach.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
Decision
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Application for provisional measures
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Appeal RoP220.1