European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 16 of 84 · 2,007 total
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, following the second interim conference in four consolidated infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies from four groups: Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva. The order addresses procedural matters including the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and rulings on the admissibility of late-filed evidence.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a request by the claimant, Dolby International AB, for simultaneous interpretation from German to English at an oral hearing in a patent infringement action. The court allowed Dolby to hire an interpreter at its own cost to use the existing interpretation equipment, but rejected the request to have the interpretation costs treated as procedural costs, finding that Dolby was not disproportionately disadvantaged by the German procedural language given that its legal representatives were German-speaking.
Sanofi SA and others v.Accord Healthcare and others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance on 15 September 2025, concerning four consolidated infringement actions and counterclaims related to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, sets out the schedule and procedural arrangements for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, addresses expert testimony, and rules on the admissibility of late-filed evidence. The patent was upheld by the EPO Board of Appeal at an oral hearing on 2–4 June 2025, with written reasons pending.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466. The Presiding Judge confirmed that expert testimony from two party experts would be heard at the oral hearing scheduled for 14-17 October 2025, addressing questions about the Phase III TROPIC study and reasonable expectation of success. The order summons the party experts and sets out the schedule, structure, and procedural framework for their testimony.
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Dr Reddy's, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning four consolidated infringement actions relating to European patent n° 2 493 466. The order, issued following the second interim conference, addresses the status of the EPO Board of Appeal decision, expert testimony arrangements, the schedule for the oral hearing scheduled for 14–17 October 2025, and various evidentiary rulings including the rejection of a late-filed affidavit by Zentiva.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments Incorporation, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, and Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 746 957 before the Local Division Mannheim. Defendants 2 and 3 requested security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that the Claimant, a recently founded Texas-based licensing entity, lacked sufficient financial resources to satisfy a potential cost reimbursement claim. The judge-rapporteur ordered the Claimant to provide security of EUR 600,000, and the panel rejected the Claimant's request for review under R. 333 RoP, finding the amount appropriate given the complexity of the proceedings and the Defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Anordnung
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd.
Eyesmatch Ltd filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 936 439 against Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd. Prior to closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the action after the parties settled the dispute out of court. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 14,400) to the Claimant.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court rejected the claimant TRUMPF's applications for admission of new auxiliary requests for patent amendment under R. 30.2 RoP and for admission of a corresponding further submission under R. 36 RoP, finding the claimant's justification insufficient to enable the court to exercise its discretion.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager GmbH, Johann Windhager, Stefan Windhager
The Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court found that Windhager GmbH directly infringed EP 2 223 589 B1, which protects a bed/green area edging with lockable sheet metal strips, by offering and selling such edgings on its website. The court held that offering or supplying all components of a patented product designed for simple assembly at the place of use constitutes direct infringement under Art. 25(a) EPGÜ. The counterclaim for revocation of the patent was dismissed, and the claims against the individual managing directors were rejected.
HMD Global Oy v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Application No. APP_34862/2025)
HMD Global Oy, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim, applied to change the language of proceedings from German to English (the language in which the patent EP3667981 was granted). The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that both parties were international companies in comparable situations and that, in the event of an equal balance of interests, the position of the defendant—who had not initiated the action and was bound by strict time limits—must prevail.
Unnamed Case from upc_ip.db v.Ex Parte
Order
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc. and Others
Ona Patents SL filed a patent infringement action against several Apple entities regarding EP 2 263 098 B1, and the Apple defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Prior to the closure of written proceedings, Ona Patents withdrew its infringement action, and the defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered a 40% reimbursement of court fees to the claimant and released the security for costs previously provided by the claimant.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Provisional order of the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning a confidentiality request accompanying the defendants' statement of defense in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 567 731. The court granted confidential treatment to the marked technical information in the defense and counterclaim for revocation, while expanding access to six additional named persons from the claimant's side, but rejected protection for a witness name and excluded one proposed technical expert due to insufficient information.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Google Commerce Limited & Google Ireland Limited v.Ona Patents SL (Confidentiality Order)
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Ecovacs Home Service Robotics Co., Ltd., ECOVACS Europe GmbH, ECOVACS France S.a.r.l., and ECOVACS Robotics Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 494 446. Defendant 2 (ECOVACS Europe GmbH) sought a two-month extension of its deadline to file a statement of defense and counterclaim for invalidity, and an extension of its Preliminary Objection deadline, to unify the procedural timetable with the other three defendants who had not yet been served. The court rejected the application, finding that Defendant 2 did not claim it needed more time for its defense but only sought procedural simplification, and that the interest in procedural unification did not outweigh the claimant's interest in proceeding without delay.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
This case before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Milan concerned European Patent EP2145848 held by Oerlikon Textile GmbH. After Oerlikon filed an infringement action against Himson Engineering Private Limited and Himson filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, both parties reached a settlement and jointly filed a withdrawal of their respective claims. The court admitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered full compensation of costs between the parties, and declined to refund court fees.
HMD Global Oy v.Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Language of Proceedings)
HMD Global Oy, a Finnish company, requested that the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2609590 was granted. The Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, opposed the change, arguing that HMD Global, as a multinational company, could reasonably handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the position of the defendant must prevail in the balancing of interests, particularly given that HMD Global is based in a non-German speaking country and would face significant translation burdens.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI OPCO LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS against eight defendants, including Adobe entities, OpenAI entities, TruePic Inc., and others, regarding European Patent EP2949070. The order addresses requests for extension of time limits under Rule 9.3 of the Rules of Procedure, aligning the starting date for all defendants' deadlines to September 4, 2025, and granting an exceptional 4-week extension. The defendants were ordered to file any preliminary objections by November 3, 2025, and their defense submissions by January 2, 2026.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS filed a revocation action against Corning Incorporated concerning European Patent EP 3 296 274 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. TCL sought a two-week extension of the deadline to file its reply to the Defence to Revocation and defence to the Application to amend, citing ongoing technical testing for prior art attacks. The Court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant had not demonstrated special circumstances justifying deviation from the standard two-month time period provided in the Rules of Procedure.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft Corporation applied for an order under Rule 262A RoP to treat certain exhibit information as strictly confidential in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The information in question consisted of invoices from Microsoft's law firm detailing hours worked, tasks performed, and billing rates. The respondent objected, arguing no specific confidentiality grounds were provided. The Court granted the confidentiality request, finding the information met the criteria for confidential treatment and attorney-client privilege, but dismissed the request for a predetermined penalty payment.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Nederland N.V., Renault S.A.S., and Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application by the Defendants (Renault group entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action based on EP3720095. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The Court granted the request, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation filed an application for provisional measures before the Milan Local Division based on EP 3 646 825 B1 against Sintec S.r.l. and Value Med S.r.l. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement on 23 June 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm it. The Court confirmed the settlement but dismissed Edwards's request for reimbursement of 60% of the court fees, holding that Rule 370.9(c)(i) RoP does not apply to provisional measures proceedings.