European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 15 of 67 · 1,592 total
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation regarding the respondent's 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell,' citing difficulties in accessing the machine. The UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf ultimately dismissed this application. This decision highlights the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures, even when a main infringement action is pending, emphasizing that procedural requirements must be strictly met.
Crystal Clear Codec Sp.z o.o. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.
This UPC decision, issued by the President of the Court of First Instance in Munich, addressed a procedural request regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving OPPO and Crystal Clear Codec. The defendants requested that the court change the language from German to English, citing fairness and industry standards. Crucially, the claimant agreed to this change, leading the court to issue an order adopting English as the official language for the remainder of the litigation.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE. LTD.
In a case involving TP-LINK and Atlas Global Technologies, the Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order suspending the ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 and EP 3 186 937. The suspension was reached by mutual agreement between all parties involved in the litigation. This procedural step allows both sides to pause the UPC action while awaiting final decisions from the European Patent Office (EPO) or the conclusion of opposition appeals.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
This procedural decision in UPC case UPC_CFI_479/2025 confirms the readiness for enforcement following a previous provisional measures ruling. The claimants, Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V., have secured the necessary security deposits to proceed with enforcing injunctions, information orders, penalty sums, and costs against multiple defendants. The court authorized electronic service of the final order, moving the case closer to a definitive enforcement phase.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and associated entities (including BAMTech LLC)
In a procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC decided to consolidate an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates. The case also includes a counterclaim for revocation of EP 2 080 349. By combining both claims, the Court aims for judicial efficiency, ensuring that any determination of patent validity is consistent with the subsequent assessment of infringement. This early decision sets the procedural framework for the complex dispute involving digital streaming technologies.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a request for the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of both an infringement action and associated counterclaims. The Court analyzed the procedural status of the case—specifically that regular pleadings had been exchanged, but the written procedure was not formally closed. Applying relevant Rules of Procedure (R. 370.9(b)(ii)), the Court granted a partial reimbursement of 40% of the fees to the Defendants.
Merz Therapeutics GmbH v.Viatris Santé
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures (UPC_CFI_697/2025), the Court addressed the disparity in the length of written submissions between Merz Therapeutics and Viatris Santé. Recognizing that the extensive 473-page objection filed by Viatris was disproportionate to the summary nature of the proceedings, the Judge Rapporteur intervened. The Court imposed strict page limits—70 pages for Viatris's summary objection and 40 pages for Merz's reply—to ensure procedural economy while maintaining fairness.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the infringement of its washing machine cabinet patent (EP3522755B1). Although the court did not grant the full scope of preliminary relief requested by Washtower, it issued a significant interim award for legal costs totaling EUR 62,600. This decision highlights how UPC proceedings can yield financial benefits even when primary injunctive or declaratory relief is not immediately granted.
Bodycap v.Office européen des brevets (OEB)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the strict procedural requirements for obtaining unitary effect under the Unitary Patent Regulation (RPU). The appeal, brought by co-owners against the EPO's rejection of their request, centered on whether a late response to an invitation to correct administrative irregularities could be remedied. The court firmly ruled that the one-month deadline set out in Rule 7(3) RPU is absolute and non-negotiable. This case serves as a critical reminder for patent holders regarding the procedural rigidity when transitioning from national/European patents to unitary protection.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a motion for disclosure of license agreements in an ongoing infringement and FRAND dispute between Huawei and MediaTek. The court partially granted the respondent's request, compelling the claimant (Huawei) to submit specific relevant licensing contracts. However, the court rejected broader demands for disclosing all related contractual amendments and supplementary agreements. This ruling underscores the Court's careful balancing act between ensuring full transparency in SEP disputes and protecting confidential business information.
Sanofi SA (and associated Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, and other defendants
In this complex pharmaceutical infringement case, Sanofi initiated proceedings against several competitors regarding the validity of EP patent 2 493 466. The court issued a procedural order summoning party experts to address critical questions concerning the inventive step and the reasonable expectation of success in oncological clinical trials (specifically referencing the TROPIC study). This hearing will focus on whether sufficient data existed at the priority date to justify the trial's progression, making it a significant case for pharmaceutical patent practitioners.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in the UPC Munich Local Division sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute involving Sanofi and various generic competitors. The court has scheduled detailed expert testimony to address highly technical questions concerning oncological clinical trials, specifically regarding the reasonable expectation of success for the patented drug. This focus on factual evidence related to industry practice is crucial as it will directly inform the panel's decision on whether the patent lacks inventive step (obviousness).
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses an application regarding simultaneous interpretation in a patent infringement case. The claimant, Dolby International AB, sought judicial assistance to ensure their non-German speaking representatives could participate fully in the oral hearing. Although the court agreed that interpretation was necessary for active participation, it refused to bear the costs of the service. Instead, the claimant is permitted to hire an interpreter at their own expense, setting a clear precedent on the financial burden of language support in UPC proceedings.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Mature IP (represented by Sanofi SA) v.Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare AB, Accord Healthcare B.V.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and Accord Healthcare (and related defendants) sets the stage for critical expert testimony and oral hearings. The core of the case revolves around the validity of European Patent EP 2 493 466, specifically challenging its inventive step based on clinical trial data (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled detailed sessions to allow experts to address complex factual questions regarding oncological drug development, which will ultimately inform the legal question of obviousness. This case highlights the UPC's structured approach to integrating technical expertise into patent litigation.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation; Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH; Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
In this UPC case concerning a semiconductor patent, the court addressed a critical procedural issue: security for costs. The Defendants successfully argued that the Claimant, a non-practicing entity structured as a licensing company, should provide financial guarantees to cover potential legal expenses. The Court rejected the Claimant's arguments regarding its startup status and co-working space operations, upholding the requirement for security. This decision reinforces the UPC's strict stance on ensuring procedural fairness and cost recovery in infringement actions.
Sanofi A/S, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi B.V., Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi-Aventis France, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi AB v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a complex pharmaceutical infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants sets the stage for intensive litigation. The core dispute revolves around the inventive step of EP 2 493 466, specifically concerning the reasonable expectation of success derived from clinical trials (TROPIC study). The court has scheduled extensive expert testimony and oral hearings to allow the panel to address highly technical factual questions related to oncology drug development before making a final decision on validity and infringement. This case highlights the UPC's capacity to handle deep scientific and medical complexities in patent disputes.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order from Düsseldorf Local Chamber, the court addressed the claimant's attempts to introduce late amendments to the scope of patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The claimant sought permission to modify its claims based on new arguments raised by the defendant in a counterclaim for revocation. However, the court rejected these applications, emphasizing that merely claiming 'surprise' is insufficient justification. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements under the UPC Rules of Procedure (R. 30.2 VerfO), requiring applicants to demonstrate a clear link between the opponent's arguments and the necessity of the late claim amendments. This decision serves as a strong warning against using procedural maneuvers to circumvent established timelines in patent litigation.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Chamber addressed disputes over the scope and timing of submissions in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning EP 2 624 031 B1. The respondent sought to exclude large sections of the claimant's pleadings, arguing they were untimely or irrelevant to the patent validity challenge. Conversely, the claimant requested permission to introduce further arguments regarding claim waivers relevant to the infringement case. The court rejected all procedural motions, maintaining strict adherence to the UPC Rules of Procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp.
This UPC decision confirms the procedural mechanism for withdrawing an infringement action when parties reach a settlement outside of court. Eyesmatch Ltd withdrew its claim against Microsoft Corp., and the Court formally closed the proceedings. The ruling highlights that mutual agreement between parties can supersede standard cost determination procedures, provided all necessary declarations are made.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application by the Defendant, HMD Global Oy, seeking to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The Court found that while both parties were international entities with comparable resources, the principle dictates that if interests are equal, the position of the non-initiating party (the Defendant) prevails. Consequently, the request for a language change was granted, allowing the case to proceed in English.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handels GmbH (and Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager)
This UPC decision addresses a complex infringement case involving interlocking metal strips used for garden edging. The court issued significant legal guidance, establishing that merely offering or supplying components designed to assemble easily constitutes direct patent infringement. While the claimant secured an injunction and damages against the main defendant, the overall infringement claim was partially dismissed, highlighting the nuanced application of component supply rules in UPC litigation.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a costs application following the withdrawal of an infringement action against Apple Inc. The Court determined that despite the case not being formally closed, the extensive exchange of pleadings warranted only a partial reimbursement of court fees. This ruling provides clarity on how the UPC assesses fee reimbursement when parties withdraw actions during the written procedure phase.
Washtower IP B.V. v.INDUSTRIEBETEILIGUNGS- UND BERATUNGS GMBH
Washtower IP B.V. sought provisional measures against several defendants regarding the patent EP3522755B1 covering ergonomic washing machine cabinets. The court issued an order on September 11, 2025, focusing primarily on costs and interim relief. Although the application for preliminary measures was partially addressed, the ruling established a significant cost award of EUR 62,600 against Defendants 2-5.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this preliminary injunction case, Huawei sought protection for technical information disclosed by MediaTek in its counterclaim regarding chip functionality and encoding algorithms. The court granted confidentiality status to these specific technical documents, recognizing their sensitive nature despite the claimant's arguments that they were merely 'negative facts.' However, the request to protect a witness's name was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of risk. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to balance proprietary interests against procedural needs in complex technology disputes.