European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 14 of 84 · 2,007 total
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 215 288 B1 relating to metal sintering preparations for connecting components in electronics. The plaintiff (Heraeus Electronics) brought an infringement action against the defendant (Vibrantz GmbH), while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court partially revoked the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and addressed the binding effect of a prior final judgment from the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) that had maintained the German part of the patent in amended form.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
Total Semiconductor, LLC sued Texas Instruments and its German subsidiaries for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 746 957, which relates to an intelligent interrupt distributor in a multiprocessor system. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments implemented certain features of the patent claim, and that the defendants' arguments regarding lack of inventive step based on general common knowledge were also unsuccessful.
Cretes NV v.Hyler BV
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between the parties in parallel infringement and validity proceedings, along with the related question of court fee reimbursement. Both parties requested 40% reimbursement of their already paid court fees of €11,000, but the court determined that each party was entitled to only €2,000, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that would have become due if no settlement had been reached.
Hypertherm Inc. v.Tec.Mo. s.r.l.
Hypertherm Inc. filed a patent infringement assessment action against Tec.Mo. s.r.l. before the Local Division of Milan. After the proceedings were suspended to allow settlement negotiations, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested termination of the proceedings under rule 360 RoP, along with a 60% reimbursement of court fees under rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP. The court granted both requests, ordering the archiving of the case and the reimbursement of 6,600 Euro to Hypertherm Inc.
Hyler BV v.Cretes NV
This case before the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerned the confirmation of a settlement agreement reached between Hyler BV and Cretes NV in parallel infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning European patents EP3993602 and EP4284152. Both parties requested reimbursement of 40% of the already paid court fees (€4,400 each), but the court ordered reimbursement of only €2,000 each, taking into account the outstanding court fees of €4,000 per party that had not yet been paid. The court confirmed the settlement, ordered its confidentiality, and terminated the proceedings.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected appeals by Roku against orders of the Local Division Munich that had dismissed Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust. The court held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under the UPCA does not infringe the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division.
Roku International B.V. and Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
Roku appealed orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected its objections to the court's jurisdiction in three infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun Patent Trust concerning three European patents. The Court of Appeal held that Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure provides an exhaustive list of admissible grounds for objection, that the UPC's jurisdiction under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Articles 71a et seq. Brussels Ia Regulation and Article 32 UPCA does not interfere with the division of tasks between the CJEU and national courts under Articles 19 TEU and 267 TFEU, and that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Article 87(2) UPCA to replace London with Milan as a division of the Central Division. All appeals were dismissed.
Roku Inc. and Roku International B.V. v.Dolby International AB and Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Roku's appeals against orders of the Local Division Munich that had rejected Roku's objections to infringement actions brought by Dolby and Sun. The court upheld the admissibility of objections based on lack of jurisdiction under R. 19.1(a) RoP, confirmed the UPC's international jurisdiction under Art. 31 UPCA in conjunction with Art. 71a ff. Brussels Ia Regulation, and held that the Administrative Committee was authorized under Art. 87(2) UPCA (applied analogously) to replace London with Milan as a section of the Central Division following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Managing Directors v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin companies to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy infringing wireless chargers, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings. The court also addressed key legal questions regarding the interpretation of 'offering' under Art. 25 EPGÜ, liability of managing directors for patent infringement, and the proportionality of corrective measures.
Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., Belkin Limited and Others v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent infringement and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 2 867 997, which relates to wireless inductive power transfer. Philips, the patent holder, sued Belkin companies and their managing directors for offering wireless chargers on www.belkin.com that comply with the Qi standard's Extended Power Profile. The Court of Appeal partially upheld the appeals, ordering injunctive relief and corrective measures against the corporate defendants while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings, and declined to hold the individual managing directors personally liable.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
Corning Incorporated filed an infringement action concerning EP 3 296 274 against multiple defendants including Hisense, TCL, and LG entities before the Mannheim Local Division. During the written procedure, Corning requested partial withdrawal of the infringement action against the LG defendants (Defendants 7-9), who in turn requested withdrawal of their counterclaim for revocation. The court permitted both withdrawals, closed the proceedings against the LG defendants, and ordered each side to bear their own costs regarding the withdrawn portions.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.Belkin GmbH, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin Limited and Others
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated October 3, 2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 867 997 relating to wireless inductive power transfer. Koninklijke Philips N.V. sued Belkin entities (and their managing directors) for patent infringement regarding wireless chargers meeting the Qi Extended Power Profile standard, while Belkin filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal partially modified the first-instance decision, ordering Belkin GmbH, Belkin International Inc., and Belkin Limited to recall, remove from distribution channels, and destroy the infringing products, while excluding actions in Germany due to prior national proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
Hurom Co., Ltd., a Korean manufacturer of juicers and registered proprietor of European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1 (relating to a juice extractor), sued NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK for patent infringement regarding the 'AUTO10' slow juicer sold under the 'Kuvings' brand. The Local Division Mannheim separated the proceedings concerning Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom pending the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). Following that decision, the court held that the defendants infringed claim 1 of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, ordering damages and an information/accounting obligation.
expert klein GmbH and expert e-Commerce GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 3 926 698, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., relating to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance decision, holding that claim 1 of the patent contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because feature 5.2 (openings near the edge of the substrate) was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original application as filed. Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 were declared invalid, the infringement claims were dismissed, and Viosys was ordered to bear the costs.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
Hurom Co., Ltd. sued NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor, concerning NUC's slow juicer marketed as 'AUTO10'. The proceedings were separated from the main action to address the national parts of the patent in Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte (C-339/22). The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the action, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction over the Polish, Spanish, and UK national parts of the patent.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court revoked an ex-parte Saisie (evidence preservation) order that had been issued in favor of Centripetal Limited against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. concerning EP 3 281 580. The court found that the inspection had been executed against a separate legal entity (Palo Alto Networks (Germany) GmbH) rather than against the named Defendant, and that the Applicant had breached its duty of candor by failing to inform the court of this material change in circumstances.
Expert e-Commerce GmbH & Expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698, which relates to a flip-chip light-emitting diode (LED). The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision, finding that claim 1 (and dependent claims 4, 5, 6, and 9) contained an inadmissible extension of subject matter because a key feature regarding openings near the substrate edge was not clearly and unambiguously disclosed in the original parent applications. The Court declared the relevant claims invalid and rejected all infringement claims brought by Seoul Viosys.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
This is a rectification order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf on 2 October 2025 in patent infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. The court, on its own motion, corrected paragraph 6 of its earlier order dated 29 September 2025 to fix a clerical error and a calculation error, directing the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees paid, amounting to €14,400.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerned Centripetal Limited's application for a penalty order against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for alleged non-compliance with a saisie (inspection) order related to European Patent EP 3 281 580. The court rejected the request, finding that Palo Alto was under no obligation to actively set up access rights or bring hardware to the Munich premises, as the inspection order only covered what was physically present at the specified location. The panel confirmed the Judge-rapporteur's order and denied leave to appeal.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A. Menarini Diagnostics France SASU
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 1 962 668 B1. The court classified certain information contained in the defendants' opposition and related annexes as confidential under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure and restricted access to the unredacted versions to a limited number of identified persons on the claimants' side.
Robert Bosch GmbH v.Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court rejected objections filed by the defendants under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure challenging the court's international and territorial jurisdiction over alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 030 383 B1 in non-UPC contracting member states (Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom). The court held that international jurisdiction was established under Article 31 UPCA, Article 71b(1), Article 4(1), and Article 63(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation because all defendants are domiciled in Germany, and that Article 34 UPCA concerns the territorial scope of effects of decisions rather than jurisdiction.
Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc., Luxendo GmbH, Bruker Nederland B.V. v.10x Genomics, Inc., President and Fellows of Harvard College
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Bruker's appeal challenging the Munich Local Division's decision to reimburse only 60% of the court fees paid for Bruker's application for compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP. The court held that a request to lay open books for the purpose of determining compensation under Rule 213.2 RoP forms part of the separate procedure for the determination of damages governed by Chapter 4 of Part 1 RoP, requiring payment of both a fixed fee and a value-based fee. The court further found that combining a request to establish liability with a request to lay open books does not entitle the applicant to a reduced or no fee.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerning an application for provisional measures filed by Guardant Health, Inc. against four Sophia Genetics entities based on four European patents. The order sets the date for the oral hearing and establishes a procedural timeline for objections and replies.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement proceedings were initiated by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL concerning EP 4 074 373 before the Hamburg Local Division. The parties subsequently concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement, keep its details confidential, and refrain from issuing a cost decision. The Court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365.1 RoP, ordered that only the redacted version be entered in the register, and declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court.