European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 67 · 1,592 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural order concerning EP 3 110 072 B1, the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf corrected an error in its prior decision. The case involved Headwater Research LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., addressing issues related to patent infringement and costs. The court's ruling focused solely on rectifying a clerical and calculation mistake regarding the reimbursement of claimant fees.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In a significant decision regarding patent scope, the UPC Board of Appeal invalidated key claims of EP 3 926 698. The core finding centered on the doctrine of impermissible expansion, holding that a claim cannot extend beyond what was clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application documents. This ruling reinforces strict interpretation requirements for divisional applications, emphasizing that the scope must be traceable to both the initial filing and the parent PCT application. For patent practitioners, this case serves as a strong reminder of the critical importance of precise drafting and disclosure during the prosecution phase.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order addressed a request for drastic penalties following an attempted evidence seizure (Saisie). The court confirmed that while the Applicant sought monitoring of Palo Alto Networks' network security solution, the Defendant was not found to be in breach. The core legal principle established is that inspection orders are strictly limited to what exists at the specified premises; they cannot compel a defendant to actively set up or procure non-present systems or documentation.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH
Hurom Co., Ltd. successfully pursued an infringement action against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding the juice extractor patent EP 2 028 981. The Local Division Mannheim granted injunctive relief for specific national parts of the patent, finding that the Defendants' slow juicers infringed the claims. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforcement capabilities of the UPC in complex mechanical product infringement cases.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
In this UPC case, Hurom sued NUC Electronics regarding the alleged infringement of a patent covering a specific type of juice extractor. The proceedings were separated due to the pending ECJ decision on related matters. Ultimately, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action for the separated part, citing that the dispute was minor in scope and focused primarily on damages rather than immediate market injunctions.
expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
In this UPC appeal, expert klein GmbH successfully challenged the validity of EP 3 926 698 held by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. The court ruled that Claim 1 was invalid because it contained an impermissible extension of subject matter. Specifically, features not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application or PCT filing were deemed outside the scope of protection. This decision reinforces strict interpretation principles regarding claim scope derived from initial patent disclosures, a critical point for IP strategy.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order to protect confidential information during proceedings related to EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified detailed manufacturing processes, commercial negotiation records, pricing data, and expert witness statements as trade secrets. This decision underscores the importance of robust confidentiality measures within UPC litigation, allowing parties to safeguard sensitive business intelligence.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute concerning the costs associated with an application for damages/compensation. Bruker appealed the limitation on the reimbursement of court fees related to its request to lay open books, arguing that such proceedings should not incur separate fees. The Court firmly upheld the requirement for Bruker to pay both fixed and value-based fees, confirming that compensation determination is a distinct quantum proceeding under the RoP. This ruling clarifies the financial obligations parties face when seeking damages or compensation in UPC litigation.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Dienstleistung GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG
In this UPC case, Robert Bosch GmbH sued Grizzly Tools and related entities for infringement of EP 3 030 383 across multiple EU states, including non-EPCU members like Poland, Spain, and the UK. The defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction over these foreign territories. The Mannheim Local Division decisively rejected these objections, affirming that the UPC possesses international competence to handle claims related to non-EPCU member states, consistent with recent CJEU jurisprudence (BSH Hausgeräte). This ruling reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the unified patent system.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA; Sophia Genetics SAS; Sophia Genetics SRL; Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. filed an application for provisional measures against the various Sophia Genetics entities concerning four European patents (EP 3766986 et al.). Since the defendants failed to provide legal representation promptly, the UPC Court of First Instance issued a procedural order setting the date for an oral hearing on December 12, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's commitment to rapid case management in urgent provisional measures proceedings.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural matter concerning a pending revocation counterclaim in an infringement action involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Court allowed the Defendants to withdraw their counterclaim because no final appeal had been lodged against prior decisions, which was consented to by the Claimant. Consequently, the proceedings related to the counterclaim were closed, with both parties agreeing to bear their own costs.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated infringement proceedings against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL regarding EP 4 074 373. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. The Hamburg Local Division confirmed this settlement, allowing it to be treated as a final, enforceable decision while ensuring that the confidential details of the agreement remained protected in the public register.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics and its subsidiaries regarding EP 3 110 072 B1. However, before the written procedure concluded, the Claimant voluntarily withdrew the suit with the full agreement of all Defendants. The UPC Local Division Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Notably, the Court applied rules allowing for a 60% reimbursement of court fees for the Defendants due to the early withdrawal.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, and bioMérieux Benelux BV
Labrador Diagnostics LLC has initiated a patent infringement action against multiple bioMérieux entities before the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. This procedural order sets the stage for the litigation, scheduling an oral hearing for November 27, 2025. The parties are now required to prepare their arguments and attend the hearing, which will be audio recorded.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In a case involving Headwater Research LLC and Samsung Electronics, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the withdrawal of an ongoing infringement action. Although the court had previously dismissed the infringement claim and revoked the patent (to the extent of claim 1), the parties mutually agreed to terminate the proceedings. This decision highlights the procedural flexibility within the UPC, allowing actions to be withdrawn when there is no pending appeal and mutual consent exists.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track And Trace (ATT)
In a procedural victory for settlement, the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court homologated an agreement between Scantrust and Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). The case, which had initially been brought as a revocation action against patent EP2364485, concluded with both parties agreeing to terminate the dispute. This decision underscores the UPC's role in facilitating amicable resolutions while maintaining confidentiality for sensitive transaction details.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. successfully obtained an ex parte order from the UPC Local Division in The Hague to preserve evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. This urgent measure was sought during a trade fair, targeting the alleged infringing seed counting machine (SD-14010). The court ruled that the applicant met all necessary criteria under UPC rules for interim measures, allowing for the seizure and detailed examination of the device to confirm patent infringement. This decision is significant as it demonstrates the UPC's willingness to grant swift provisional relief when evidence preservation is critical before a main action commences.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track And Trace (ATT)
In a case concerning the revocation of patent EP2364485, Scantrust sought to invalidate the patent held by Advanced Track And Trace (ATT). Instead of proceeding with litigation, the parties reached an amicable settlement. The UPC Central Division subsequently homologated this transaction under Rule 365(2) RdP, formally concluding the dispute and confirming that both sides would bear their own legal costs.
Washtower IP B.V. v.Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision is a purely procedural order granting an extension of time to the Appellants (defendants from the CFI proceedings). The Appellants requested more time to prepare their grounds of appeal due to professional constraints, including mandatory attendance at an EPO hearing. The Court granted a three-working-day extension, emphasizing the principles of due process while ensuring the Respondents' interests were secured by the enforceability of the original order.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
In a significant procedural ruling, the UPC Court of Appeal admitted Apple Inc. as an intervener in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The core issue was whether Apple had sufficient legal interest to participate in appeals concerning the confidentiality regime for sensitive license agreements. The court affirmed that intervention is possible even when the matter relates to interim procedural orders, provided a direct legal interest can be demonstrated. This decision clarifies the scope of 'legal interest' under UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), setting a precedent for how third parties can participate in complex litigation concerning trade secrets and confidential information.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple's successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime applied to highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, recognizing its direct legal interest in protecting its sensitive business data from disclosure to Vivo's employees. This decision is significant for IP practitioners dealing with complex litigation involving trade secrets and commercial interests within the UPC framework.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns an application by Apple Inc. to intervene in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings between Ericsson and ASUS/Arvato. The court ruled that Apple possessed a legal interest, allowing its admission as an intervener supporting Ericsson's request for a stricter 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the scope of intervention under UPC Rules of Procedure, confirming that interests in interim orders are sufficient grounds for participation.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd.
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s successful application to intervene in an appeal brought by Sun Patent Trust against Vivo Mobile Communication Co.,Ltd. The core dispute involved the scope of confidentiality regarding highly confidential information (HCI) related to licensing agreements. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple, recognizing its direct legal interest in preventing the disclosure of its sensitive business data to VIVO employees. This decision reinforces the procedural mechanisms available for third parties whose interests are affected by ongoing litigation.
3V Sigma s.p.a. v.ACEF s.r.l.; AGA s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of documents gathered during evidence protection proceedings (discovery). The Tribunal ruled that while certain commercial and non-relevant technical documents must remain confidential, a structured 'confidentiality club' was established. This ruling provides clear guidance on how to balance trade secret protection with the procedural rights of parties in UPC litigation.