European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 16 of 92 · 2,185 total
Nokia Technologies Oy a.o. v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy had sought an ex parte 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' against Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales before the Local Chamber Mannheim, which was granted on 20 April 2026 subject to a €600,000 security deposit. The applicants deposited the security on 21 April 2026. On 27 May 2026, with the respondents' consent, the applicants requested withdrawal of the application and release of the security. The Mannheim Local Chamber allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the €600,000 security deposit.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc. a. o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-08) under reference UPC_0C3E23552C, Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS appeared in dispute with Amgen Inc. a. o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & C v.Gastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
Infringement Action
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH and Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L.
This procedural order concerns an application by Align Technology, Inc. under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Proceedings to disregard late-filed non-infringement arguments raised by the Angelalign defendants in their rejoinder. Align argued that the defendants introduced new non-infringement arguments regarding features 1.3 and 1.3.4 of Claim 1 for the first time in their rejoinder, contrary to the front-loaded nature of the proceedings. The defendants requested dismissal of Align's requests and an opportunity to reply in writing to the disputed paragraphs and exhibits.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spain, S.L.U. Global Consolidated Aesthetics (UK) Limited GC Aesthetics Holdings Limited GC Aesthetics Finance Limited Romed NV
Counterclaim for revocation
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Application for provisional measures
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited Nagor Limited GC Aesthetics Management Limited GC Aesthetics (Distribution) Limited GC Aesthetics (France) SAS EuroSilicone SAS GC Aesthetics Italy S.R.L. GC Aesthetics GmbH GC Aesthetics Spai
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of prior court decisions concerning European Patent EP3119235. During an oral hearing in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement that no cost reimbursement would be sought. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
Gilead Sciences, Inc.,, 94404, USA v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Procedural Order
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Infringement Action
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against multiple defendants including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities concerning EP 2 618 514. The Claimant requested permission to withdraw the infringement action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Local Division Hamburg permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. Et al.
Infringement Action
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
Appeal RoP220.1
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oppo
In this legal proceeding before The Hague (NL) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-06-02) under reference UPC_65DAC4432F, Koninklijke KPN N.V. appeared in dispute with Oppo concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 2 June 2026, addresses multiple legal questions arising from proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174 validated in Germany and the United Kingdom. The headnotes cover issues of claim construction (particularly regarding numerical values and manufacturing tolerances), private prior use under Article 28 UPCA and German law, front-loaded proceedings under Rule 29(c) RoP, international jurisdiction under Article 34 UPCA and Brussels I bis, and the exercise of international jurisdiction including the application of comity principles when patents validated outside the UPC territory are at issue.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
Appeal RoP220.2
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. a.o.
Revocation Action
Boa Technology Inc. v.Shinkyung Inc. et al.
Infringement Action