European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 17 of 67 · 1,592 total
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a procedural order concerning solar technology patents, the UPC Local Division Munich granted a stay to both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision was made because the parties are actively negotiating a comprehensive settlement agreement regarding the disputed patent EP 4 372 829. The Court also ensured that if the proceedings resume, all deadlines will be reset, providing procedural certainty while allowing time for commercial resolution.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH; Keysight Technologies, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural dispute regarding the allowance of further written pleadings in an infringement action. Centripetal Limited sought to introduce evidence concerning a newly released infringing product (AI Stack) by requesting a discretionary review of the CFI's rejection. The court ultimately denied the request, prioritizing the principle of expeditious proceedings and finding that Centripetal's delay in filing was a relevant factor. This ruling reinforces the strict application of procedural rules within the UPC framework.
KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH v.Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH
In this procedural order, KNAPP Smart Solutions GmbH sought an extension of deadlines related to its infringement claim against Becton Dickinson Rowa Germany GmbH concerning EP 2 133 289. The court partially granted the request, setting a new deadline for various pleadings until September 5, 2025. This decision highlights the UPC's strict procedural adherence, where extensions must be calculated carefully to avoid conflicts with subsequent hearing dates and rules regarding weekend extensions.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a Preliminary objection raised by the patent holder, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., arguing that the revocation action lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was acting as a 'straw company' for another party involved in parallel infringement proceedings. The Court ultimately rejected this argument, emphasizing that coordinated litigation strategies alone do not equate to a straw company structure. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required to successfully challenge standing or jurisdiction based on corporate relationships within the UPC framework.
City Glass and Glazing Private Limited v.Maars Holding B.V., Maars Projecten B.V., Maars Partitioning Systems B.V., Maars France
In this UPC case, City Glass sued Maars for infringing its patent covering a unique self-locking glazing system. The Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the infringement claim, finding that the alleged use of Horizon Products did not constitute infringement under EP 1651838. Crucially, the court also rejected Maars' counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. This decision highlights the high bar for proving both infringement and invalidity in UPC proceedings.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a Claimant's application to change its infringement claims regarding a swivel locking device for strollers (EP 1 905 615). The Claimant sought to modify claim language, primarily by altering how components were allocated between the 'seat' and the 'base' of the wheel bearing assembly. While the court found that the proposed extension of equivalence arguments was not fundamentally changing the targeted structure, it ultimately denied the application for leave to change the claim.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses the costs allocation in a provisional measures proceeding concerning EP 4 001 835. The core dispute involved whether the application was moot and who should bear the legal costs, particularly regarding Respondent No. 2 (Blankenhorn GmbH). Although the claimant sought to impose costs on Respondent No. 2 due to lack of formal warning, the court found that since both parties agreed the matter was settled, the proceedings were terminated. The court ultimately upheld the imposition of costs on Respondent No. 2 based on principles of equity.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.; Blankenhorn GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a procedural application concerning court fees following the withdrawal of an interim measure claim. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought a partial refund of legal costs after withdrawing its action against one respondent. The Mannheim Local Court ultimately rejected this request, emphasizing that the relevant fee reimbursement rules are designed for full lawsuits and do not apply to applications for provisional measures. This ruling serves as a reminder of the strict procedural boundaries governing cost recovery in UPC proceedings.
Decathlon v.OWIM GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Digital Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG, Kaufland Marketplace GmbH, Lidl Italia S.r.l.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed a request to disregard parts of the Defendants' rejoinder regarding patent validity. The Court emphasized strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (RoP), ruling that submissions must not exceed the scope permitted for the specific pleading stage. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural discipline within the UPC framework, preventing parties from introducing extraneous arguments or summaries outside the prescribed written procedure.
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Nordic AB, Samsung Electronics France SAS, Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
In a procedural order, the Mannheim Local Division granted requests from all parties to harmonize timelines and service dates in an infringement action concerning EP 2 936 439. The court accepted the agreement to set uniform service dates for all defendants and extended deadlines for filing defenses and replies. This decision underscores the UPC's flexibility in managing proceedings efficiently when parties mutually agree on procedural adjustments.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Munich addressed a request for public access to confidential case documents in an infringement and revocation action involving NEC and TCL. Despite the underlying claims being withdrawn by the parties, the Court recognized a general interest in judicial transparency. The court granted the applicant access to redacted versions of key pleadings and exhibits, setting a precedent for balancing openness with confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical timing issue in an infringement action concerning EP3407524, specifically regarding the commencement of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense. The Court confirmed that the final confidentiality regime established the procedural starting point, despite subsequent appeals. Recognizing the parties' voluntary cooperation on information access, the Judge-rapporteur granted a strictly limited extension to ensure fair trial rights while maintaining procedural efficiency.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
In this UPC decision concerning a patent infringement case, the court addressed a motion by MediaTek Germany GmbH to require cost security from Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering Huawei to deposit €150,000 as security for legal costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's approach to balancing procedural fairness and financial risk when dealing with international parties, particularly those based outside the EU/EEA.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A, Motocard Bike, S.L., Omnia Retail S.R.L.
This UPC decision addressed a confidential information dispute within a larger security for costs proceeding, rather than an infringement claim. Dainese sought to restrict access to its financial data, citing trade secret protection under Article 58 UPCA. The Court ultimately found a balance between protecting the claimant's sensitive information and ensuring the defendants could adequately exercise their right of defense. Access was granted to specific individuals, including Ms. Caterina Buccimazza, subject to strict confidentiality obligations.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This UPC Procedural Order addressed a critical dispute over the starting date of deadlines for filing Preliminary Objections and Statements of Defense in an infringement action. The Court confirmed that prior agreements regarding confidentiality regimes establish the effective start date, despite subsequent appeals. While maintaining strict adherence to procedural efficiency, the judge-rapporteur granted a limited three-week extension based on the parties' voluntary compliance with information sharing requests.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B. V., Energy3000 solar GmbH, Thomas Seifert
In a procedural order issued on August 26, 2025, the UPC stayed an infringement action concerning EP 3 297 043 B1. The stay was granted because both the Claimant and several Defendants were engaged in settlement negotiations. Additionally, the Court extended the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence to five months to accommodate the procedural pause. This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation where out-of-court settlements are actively being pursued.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a confidential information order issued by the Court of First Instance. Sun Patent Trust sought to halt the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to designated employees of Vivo, arguing that continued access would render its appeal pointless. The Court ultimately rejected this request, finding that the appeal would not become devoid of purpose and that the claimant failed to establish a risk of irreparable harm.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 875 683. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and thus the Court lacked jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the procedural effectiveness of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. The ruling confirms that formal requirements for withdrawal are sufficient, even without explicit proof of power of attorney by a registered UPC representative.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process in linked proceedings. The Claimant sought to serve the main infringement action on the Defendant's representative who had handled provisional measures, arguing that the link between the cases mandated this. However, the Court ruled that representation is not automatically transferable across different types of proceedings, even if they are related by Rule 213.1 RoP. Consequently, service must be conducted through formal international channels (Hague Convention) due to the Defendant's foreign seat.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm entities for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 399. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an opt-out had not been validly withdrawn, thereby limiting the Court's jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements of opting out and withdrawing from the UPC system. This ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient for withdrawal, even without explicit proof of representation authority.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Sun Patent Trust against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The dispute centered on restricting access to highly confidential information (HCI) within ongoing infringement proceedings involving Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court ultimately rejected the request, finding that even if HCI was disclosed, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose because it addresses both access and usage conditions for the sensitive data.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
In this UPC case, Network System Technologies LLC sued Qualcomm for patent infringement concerning EP 1 552 669. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection arguing that an earlier opt-out remained valid and had not been properly withdrawn, thus stripping the UPC of jurisdiction. The Local Division Munich rejected this objection, establishing a clear precedent regarding the formal requirements for withdrawing an opt-out. The ruling confirms that proper registration and adherence to procedural rules are sufficient, even without explicit proof of a power of attorney from the proprietor.