European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 17 of 79 · 1,878 total
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, titled 'Method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics.' TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE, the sole proprietor of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent, sued IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG for patent infringement. The defendant filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf heard oral arguments on January 22, 2026 and rendered its decision on March 16, 2026.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
This appeal concerned the review of an ex parte order for inspection issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf. Ecovacs had applied for an order to inspect and preserve evidence of Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, alleging potential infringement of EP 3 808 512. The Court of Appeal addressed the heightened duty of candour imposed on applicants seeking ex parte orders under R. 192.3 RoP, holding that omissions and distorted accounts of material facts relevant to the proportionality assessment cannot be remedied by later submissions in response to a request for review.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS, Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 (UP) before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Milan Seat). The defendants filed an application under Rule 158 RoP requesting security for legal costs in the amount of 112,000 €, citing the claimant's weak financial position and the risk that a costs order would be difficult to enforce. The claimant opposed the application, requesting its dismissal or, alternatively, a reduction of the security amount based on its status as an SME.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPENAI LP, OPENAI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY v.KEEEX SAS
1 Ordonnance de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 13 mars 2026 EN-TÊTE : En principe, le mémoire en demande doit contenir les éléments de droit et fait nécessaires pour justifier la compétence de la juridiction. Lorsque la compétence de la juridiction est fo
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This appeal concerned EP 1 962 668, a patent dispute in which F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH had obtained an order for interim measures against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 5, 2025. The Menarini entities appealed that order. Before the appeal could be heard, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, and Roche withdrew its request for interim measures. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure and terminated the proceedings, noting that each party would bear its own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
This decision of the Local Division Munich concerns an infringement action filed by BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG, with the defendant filing a counterclaim for revocation under a condition subsequent. The court addressed three key procedural and substantive issues: (1) the weight of applicant statements made during grant proceedings for claim interpretation, (2) whether basing an infringement allegation on the defendant's own description of the attacked product constitutes a claim amendment, and (3) the procedural admissibility of a conditional counterclaim for revocation.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l
KeyMed brought a patent infringement action against Italian company PR Medical s.r.l. before the Milan Local Division, alleging infringement of EP 2575590 B2 through the marketing of an accessory called 'Detecto.' PR Medical raised a preliminary objection seeking to change the language of proceedings from English to Italian under Rule 14(2)(b) RoP and Article 33(1)(a) of the UPCA Agreement. The court rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the two conditions under Rule 14.2(b) RoP are cumulative and must be interpreted restrictively as an exception.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a handheld hair care appliance. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Dreame's appeal and allowed Dyson's appeal, extending the preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division to cover the New Dreame Products and Newest Dreame Products, in addition to the Old Dreame Products already covered. The Court of Appeal stayed proceedings concerning Spain and Eurep pending referral of EU law questions to the Court of Justice.
Gowling WLG v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Gowling WLG, a firm of UPC representatives, sought access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to written pleadings and evidence from preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_41/2025) between Boehringer Ingelheim and Zentiva Portugal, in which a final order had been issued on 8 May 2025. While Boehringer did not object (subject to confidentiality redactions), Zentiva opposed the request, arguing the main action was still pending and that the request was overly broad. The Lisbon Local Division granted access to the specifically identified pleadings in their redacted versions but dismissed the request for access to the exhibits, finding the evidence request insufficiently substantiated.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V v.HL Display AB
This appeal concerned patent EP 2 432 351, where the Local Division the Hague had found Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. infringed the patent and dismissed Black Sheep's counterclaim for revocation. Black Sheep appealed, but subsequently filed a withdrawal of the appeal proceedings under Rule 265(1) RoP, with HL Display's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to Black Sheep under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable to applications filed after 1 January 2026.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Eurep GmbH
This case concerns an appeal from a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings involving Dyson's European Patent 3 119 235 (relating to a handheld hair care appliance). The Court of Appeal partially stayed the proceedings and referred four questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation of Regulation 1215/2012 and Directive 2004/48, particularly regarding jurisdiction over a Hong Kong-based company (Dreame International) and its German-based EU authorized representative (Eurep GmbH) in relation to alleged patent infringement in Spain and the UPC Territory.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This is an order of the Court of Appeal concerning Hurom's application under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure for a further exchange of written pleadings in an appeal against a decision of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed Hurom's infringement claims and revoked parts of EP 3 155 936. The court held the application admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding that Hurom had waited two months after the Statement of Response and that the parties would have sufficient opportunity to address each other's positions at the oral hearing scheduled for 2 April 2026.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH, BEGA-Consult Internationale Handelsagentur GmbH & Co KG, BEGA BBK Sp. z o.o. sp. K and NEG Novex Großhandelsgesellschaft für Elektro- und Haustechnik GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V. and Washtower B.V.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures granted by The Hague Local Division in favor of Washtower against Bega regarding EP 3 522 755. Washtower applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures under R. 265 RoP, with Bega's consent, subject to conditions regarding costs and damages. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Washtower to bear the costs of both instances, ordered Washtower to compensate Bega for any injury caused by the provisional measures, and determined the value in dispute at € 530,000.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
This is a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 2 437 696 B2, owned by Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. (ABM), which relates to systems and methods for controlling position, particularly wearable position therapy devices for treating sleep disorders. ABM alleges that Philips' NightBalance position therapy device infringes device claims 1, 2, and 4 of the patent. The patent had previously been confirmed in amended form by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal on 25 December 2024 following opposition proceedings initiated by a Philips group member.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This appeal concerned a request by Sibio Technology Limited for further exchanges of written pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in its appeal against the Paris Central Division's decision dismissing its revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 831 283 B1 owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. Sibio argued that further pleadings were needed because Abbott, in its Statement of response, maintained six auxiliary requests as an alternative to upholding the appealed judgment. The judge-rapporteur rejected the request, holding that the auxiliary requests were already part of the first instance proceedings and automatically form part of the appeal proceedings under Rules 222.1 and 222.2 RoP, requiring no refiling.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. and others
It follows from Rule 370.7 RoP that if a counterclaim for revocation is submitted on behalf of several defendants, only one court fee needs to be paid for that counterclaim. However, if one of the defendants submits their own counterclaim at a later stage (e.g. because the statement of claim was served much later), that defendant cannot rely on the fee already paid by the other defendants. In this situation, it is not the same action/counterclaim in the meaning of Rule 370.7 RoP, even if th
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed EOFlow's request for discretionary review and auxiliary request for leave to appeal regarding penalty payments and costs imposed by the Milan Central Division. The court held that the discretionary review was inadmissible because EOFlow had not first obtained a denial of leave to appeal from the Court of First Instance, and that the Court of Appeal itself lacks the power to grant leave to appeal under Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. a. o.
This procedural order concerns a dispute over access to case files (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) in proceedings involving European Patent EP 4 142 215. The Rapporteur had previously granted the applicant's request for file inspection on January 27, 2026, prompting Respondent Huawei to seek Panel Review under Rule 333.1 RoP and a suspension of the order's effects. The Rapporteur issued this order addressing whether, under Rule 335 RoP, he should suspend his own order pending the Panel Review to prevent the review from becoming moot.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc
This is a provisional procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The order summons the represented parties to an oral hearing scheduled for April 22, 2026, sets non-extendable deadlines for the applicant to reply to the respondents' objection and for the respondents to file a rejoinder, and requests the President of the Court of First Instance to assign an additional technically qualified judge with expertise in the relevant technical field (classification A61F/A61B).
beMatrix NV v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
beMatrix NV, the proprietor of European Patent No. 3 757 442 B1 concerning a display module for temporary exhibition stands, applied for provisional measures against Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division, alleging that Yaham's "Sytaq RA" modular LED display system infringed the patent. After Yaham's CEO declined to cooperate when approached at the EuroShop trade fair in Düsseldorf, the court granted the preliminary injunction ex parte. The court subsequently issued a rectification order on the same day to correct a clerical error that had mistakenly named the Applicant instead of the Defendant in the operative paragraph.