European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 92 · 2,185 total
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for interim measures in a patent infringement dispute. Occlutech GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 1 998 686 relating to an occlusion instrument, appealed an order of the Local Division Düsseldorf dated 31 October 2025 in proceedings against Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), which market competing occlusion devices called MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD. The appeal addressed issues including the absence of a party at the oral hearing, claim interpretation, and the admissibility of new facts and evidence in appeal proceedings.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC a.o.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures in the Milan Local Division of the UPC during ongoing main proceedings on the merits concerning EP 3 076 673 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that a mere increase in financial loss during ongoing proceedings is insufficient and that the applicant must demonstrate new, supervening factual circumstances indicating objective deterioration.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Inc., BioNTech SE, and others
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order sets the value of the proceedings, addresses the admissibility of late-filed exhibits and submissions, orders the parties to focus their arguments for the oral hearing, and schedules the oral hearing for September 1, 2026.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
Appeal RoP220.1
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Application for provisional measures
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in connection with ongoing main proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2727342 B1 related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. Ericsson argued urgency based on the delay of the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Milan Local Division dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief at this late stage of the proceedings on the merits.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This order concerns a request for confidentiality filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 1 740 740. The Local Division had dismissed Fives' claim for damages and lost profits against REEL GmbH, finding that Fives had failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the causal link between the alleged infringement and the claimed losses. Fives filed its appeal on March 17, 2026, and submitted its appeal brief on June 11, 2026, which included a confidentiality request seeking to restrict access to certain grey-highlighted text passages and newly introduced annexes.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Infringement Action
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
Infringement Action
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
Infringement Action
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Counterclaim for revocation
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application For Costs
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between Bostik, Inc. and several Henkel entities regarding European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1. Bostik alleges that certain Henkel products in the Liofol® range infringe its patent, while Henkel has filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Court of First Instance held an interim conference on 1 June 2026, during which the parties discussed the main legal issues including claim interpretation, patent validity, alleged infringement acts, and corrective measures.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company. et.al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement dispute between two competitors in the food processing machinery market. The plaintiff, Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent No. 3 106 035 relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device and a method for loading a food processing machine. The defendant, VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH, manufactures and distributes vacuum filling machines designated 'DPnx' and 'HPnx' featuring a receiving basket for a trolley that allegedly infringes the plaintiff's patent. The patent, filed on 19 June 2015 and granted on 19 September 2018, had previously survived an opposition before the EPO Board of Appeal.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is an order issued by the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2345029 owned by Orange SA. The order addresses procedural matters including the value of the dispute (set at 3 million euros), recoverable costs, confidentiality arrangements, and the organization of the upcoming oral hearing. The court scheduled a public hearing on 7 July for validity and infringement issues, followed by a non-public hearing on 8 July for non-technical matters.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This order concerns a stay of cost proceedings in a dispute between SharkNinja Operating LLC and several SEB entities before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's provisional measures application based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant sought eleven corrections to the earlier ruling, and the court granted eight of them while rejecting three, addressing issues ranging from the representation details in the header to substantive corrections in the reasoning regarding information claims and damages.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Et al.
Infringement Action