European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 15 of 84 · 2,007 total
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH and Others
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Following a 30 July 2025 decision that dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1, the Defendants withdrew their counterclaim for revocation and the related cost application before the appeal period expired. With the Claimant's consent, the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs regarding the counterclaim.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. o.a.
Headwater Research LLC filed a patent infringement action against five Samsung entities before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Before the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and the proposed cost decision. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered each party to bear its own costs, set the value in dispute at €2,000,000, and directed the Registrar to reimburse 60% of the court fees paid.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, in which Headwater Research LLC had initially brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung entities, who filed a counterclaim for revocation. By decision of 30 July 2025, the Court dismissed the infringement action and revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1. Before the appeal period expired, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action with the Defendants' consent, and the Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division summoning the parties to an oral hearing in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The order sets the hearing date for 27 November 2025 and closes the written procedure by 7 November 2025, with no interim conference currently planned.
Scantrust v.Advanced Track and Trace
Scantrust filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 2 364 485, held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), before the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025 and jointly requested its homologation. The court approved the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, ordering that the unredacted version remain confidential and that each party bear its own costs.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. v.Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş.
Data Detection Technologies Ltd. (DDT), proprietor of European Patent EP 2569713 B1 relating to a method and apparatus for dispensing items, filed an ex parte application for preservation of evidence against Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. DDT alleged that Esde's Seed Counting Machine SD-14010, displayed at the Seed meets Technology 2025 trade fair in the Netherlands, infringed claims 1 and 8 of EP713. The Local Division The Hague granted the ex parte order, authorizing a bailiff to seize the SD-14010 and related documentation, appoint an expert and custodian, and conduct a detailed inspection, subject to conditions including confidentiality arrangements and a requirement that DDT initiate proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.
SCANTRUST v.ADVANCED TRACK AND TRACE
Scantrust filed a nullity action before the Central Division of Paris against European patent EP 2 364 485 held by Advanced Track and Trace (ATT), concerning a method and device for authentication of geometric codes. Before the scheduled oral hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement on 22 September 2025. The court homologated the settlement under Rule 365 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 79 of the UPC Agreement, allowing it to be enforced as a final decision on the merits, while keeping certain details confidential.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH & Others v.Washtower IP B.V. & Washtower B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning an appeal against an order of the Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) dated 11 September 2025, relating to European Patent EP 3 522 755. The appellants requested a two-week extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Grounds of Appeal, citing professional constraints including an EPO oral hearing. The Court of Appeal granted a limited extension of three working days, extending the deadline from 26 September 2025 to 1 October 2025.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had demonstrated a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. The Court granted Apple the right to file a Statement in intervention, respond at the oral hearing, and participate in support of Ericsson's position, while rejecting Apple's separate applications to file further submissions.
3V Sigma S.p.A. v.ACEF S.r.l. and AGA S.r.l.
This order concerns a request by the defendants (ACEF and AGA) for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP regarding documents obtained during the execution of an evidence preservation order in proceedings involving the MFSorb 513 filter. The parties agreed on absolute prohibition of access to certain documents and unrestricted access to others, with the only disputed issue being the composition of the confidentiality club for documents nos. 3 to 18. The Court ruled in favor of a balanced confidentiality regime allowing access to the claimant's representatives, their legal team, one technical consultant, and one natural person from 3V Sigma.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on 23 September 2025 admitting Apple Inc. as an intervener in appeal proceedings concerning the confidentiality regime for highly confidential information (HCI). The appeals arose from Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions against Vivo, where the Paris Local Division had permitted three Vivo employees to access HCI. The Court held that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome because the HCI included information on agreements between Apple and Sun Patent, and that the potential revocation of the impugned orders could prevent further access and use of such information.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
Unified Patent Court decision.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Apple Inc. applied to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal concerning Ericsson's appeals against orders of the Milan Local Division that had rejected an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple as an intervener, finding that Apple had a legal interest in the outcome of the appeals because the confidential information at issue included information on agreements between Ericsson and Apple. Apple was granted the opportunity to file a Statement in intervention and to participate in the oral hearing in support of Ericsson.
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. Sun Patent Trust had appealed orders of the Paris Local Division that permitted three Vivo employees to access highly confidential information (HCI), including agreements between Sun Patent Trust and Apple. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple's intervention, finding that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals as a party to the agreements containing the confidential information at issue.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation of the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' machine exhibited at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair. The applicant argued that access to the machine through normal commercial channels was impossible due to its high price (estimated well above EUR 100,000) and the respondent's exclusive, personalized distribution network. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering the inspection to be carried out by a court bailiff and appointed expert at the respondent's trade fair stand.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. a.o. v.Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o.
The defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z.o.o. before the Local Division Munich requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The claimant agreed to the change, and the President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent EP2622601 was granted.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patents EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937 against TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and three related TP-LINK entities before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings, and with the agreement of all parties, the court ordered the proceedings stayed pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP until the EPO decision becomes final or the opposition appeal proceedings conclude.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH, BEGA CONSULT INTERNATIONALE HANDELSAGENTUR GMBH & CO. KG, BEGA BBK SP. Z O.O. SP. K.UL., and NEG NOVEX WHOLESALE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL AND BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. sought provisional measures before the Local Division The Hague against members of the BEGA group and NEG Novex, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 522 755 B1 relating to a cabinet for housing a washing machine at waist level. The defendants had previously been licensed to manufacture such cabinets, but the license was terminated effective 1 August 2024. The court found a reasonable likelihood of validity and infringement, sufficient urgency, and granted the provisional measures including a prohibition on manufacturing and selling the accused 'Laundreezy' and 'Respekta Clara' cabinets, recall orders, information obligations, and penalty payments, along with a cost award of EUR 62,600.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
This procedural order concerns an application for provisional measures filed by Merz entities against Viatris Santé regarding European Patent EP2377536 and its French Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) FR13C0033. Merz sought an order requiring Viatris to consolidate its 473-page Objection into a shorter document, arguing the disparity in submission lengths would deprive them of an equal opportunity to defend their case. The judge rapporteur found the 470-page objection inappropriate in the context of provisional measures and ordered Viatris to file a 70-page summary, with Merz permitted a 40-page reply.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL (with Ekahau Oy as Counter-Defendant 2)
This order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation related to European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant (Ona Patents SL) withdrew its infringement action, and the Defendants (Apple entities) withdrew their counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees paid in relation to the counterclaim for revocation, amounting to €8,000.
Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V. v.Wasombouw B.V., Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, Bega Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co. KG, Bega BBK Sp. z o.o. Sp. K.ul., and NEG Novex Wholesale Company for Electrical and Building Services Engineering GmbH
This is a final procedural order of the Court of First Instance concerning provisional measures related to European Patent EP3522755, owned by Washtower IP B.V. Following a prior order of 11 September 2025, the applicants indicated their wish to enforce the injunctions, information order, penalty sums, and costs award against defendants 2-5. The Court confirmed receipt of security deposits totaling €50,000 and ordered electronic service of the final order on defendants 2-5, who had consented to service by email and waived their right to translations.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning an application by MediaTek Germany GmbH under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of license agreements referenced by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in the context of infringement proceedings regarding EP 3 567 731. The court partially granted the application, ordering Huawei to produce the license agreements it had identified on pages 2 and 3 of its August 15, 2025 submission with its reply to the statement of defense, while rejecting the request for two additional agreements and for ancillary agreements/amendments.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Université de Rennes v.European Patent Office
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by the co-owners of EP 3 691 518 against the rejection of their request for unitary effect. The court confirmed that the one-month non-extendable deadline under Rule 7(3) of the Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (RPU) for remedying irregularities is mandatory and excluded from restitutio in integrum under Rule 22(6) RPU. The court also held that interlocutory revision by the EPO under Rule 91 RoP is excluded for expedited actions under Rule 97 RoP.