European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 18 of 84 · 2,007 total
Eyesmatch Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Others
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action related to EP 2 936 439. All parties agreed to a uniform fictitious service date of 1 September 2025 for all Defendants, avoiding service abroad on Defendant 2 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). The court granted the agreed extension of procedural deadlines, setting new dates for preliminary objections, statements of defence, and the Claimant's reply.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., and Vivo Tech GmbH v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division concerns a dispute over the starting point of time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD) in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3407524. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, when the final confidentiality order was issued, but granted a three-week extension to account for the period during which Vivo voluntarily postponed access to the unredacted file at Sun Patent Trust's request. Vivo was ordered to file any PO by September 28, 2025, and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, brought by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek. The court granted Defendant 2's (MediaTek Germany GmbH) application for security for costs under Rule 158.1 RoP, ordering Huawei to provide security of €150,000 within six weeks, finding that Huawei's declaration regarding service on its German subsidiary did not adequately address enforcement concerns in China.
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation v.TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714)
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike, S.L.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning an application under Rule 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information in proceedings related to security for costs. Dainese S.p.A. sought to restrict access to certain exhibits and information containing its financial data, while the defendants (Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike) agreed to confidentiality but requested access for at least one natural person from their side. The Court established a confidentiality club including the defendants' UPC representatives and Ms. Caterina Buccimazza (General Counsel of Defendant 1), granted leave to appeal, and ordered a suspensive effect for the additional person's access.
Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd. v.Sun Patent Trust
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns an infringement action (UPC_CFI_361/2025) involving European Patent EP3852468 owned by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities. The court addressed Vivo's request for clarification regarding the starting point of the time limits for filing a Preliminary Objection (PO) and Statement of Defense (SoD), following a contested confidentiality regime order. The court ruled that the time limits began running on July 31, 2025, but granted a limited three-week extension, requiring Vivo to file any PO by September 28, 2025 and the SoD by November 28, 2025.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS, Siemens Healthineers AG
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 352 431 B1 in infringement and revocation proceedings. The Defendants (Siemens entities) applied under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information regarding the design, components, and functioning of the attacked embodiments and certain exhibits. The Claimant (Hologic, Inc.) did not challenge the confidentiality of the information or object to the scope of the order, and the court granted the application.
Shangrao Xinyuan Yuedong Technology Development Co., Ltd v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
The Claimant filed an infringement action against five Defendants concerning European patent EP 3 297 043 B1 before the Local Division Munich. The Claimant and Defendants 1 to 4 jointly requested a stay of proceedings due to ongoing settlement negotiations, and the Claimant also sought a stay regarding Defendant 5. The Court granted the stay under Rules 295(d) and 295(m) RoP, extended the time limit for filing the Statement of defence to five months, and ordered the parties to inform the Court if a settlement is reached.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure to prevent the disclosure of highly confidential information (HCI) to three designated Vivo employees pending its appeal of a Paris Local Division confidentiality order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 852 468. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose or that its interests outweighed Vivo's interests in timely access to the HCI for filing submissions.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection by Qualcomm defendants challenging the court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 552 669. The court held that the withdrawal of an opt-out from the court's exclusive competence was effective, even though the UPC representative who filed the withdrawal application was neither the patent proprietor nor a registered representative in the national patent registers. The court ruled that a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust sought suspensive effect under Rule 223 RoP for its appeal against a Paris Local Division order that granted three Vivo employees access to highly confidential information (HCI) in an infringement action concerning EP 3 407 524. The Court of Appeal held the application admissible but not well founded, finding that Sun Patent failed to establish the appeal would become devoid of purpose if the HCI were disclosed to the designated employees, given the existing confidentiality obligations and penalty provisions in the impugned order.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 552 399. The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out and the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to lack of proper authorization of the UPC representative who filed it. The court held that the withdrawal of the opt-out was effective, as a UPC representative acting under Rule 5.3(b)(i) RoP is not required to submit a written mandate or power of attorney for the withdrawal to be effective, and such lack of representation cannot be raised as a preliminary objection.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected a preliminary objection filed by the Qualcomm defendants challenging the Court's jurisdiction over European Patent EP 1 875 683. The court held that the opt-out from the Court's exclusive competence had been effectively withdrawn on 20 December 2023 by a registered UPC representative, and that the lack of a written mandate or power of attorney could not be invoked as a preliminary objection under Rule 19.1(a) RoP.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd & CUPOWER Europe GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 011 218 B1. In light of ongoing settlement discussions in parallel proceedings, the court suspended the file inspection proceedings by agreement of all parties until a party or the applicant requests resumption. The plaintiff's request for extension of time was thereby rendered moot.
Brita SE v.AQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court decided a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim concerning European Patent EP 2 387 547 B1, which relates to a valve actuation device for a liquid treatment container. The court found that the patent was valid in amended form (auxiliary requests) and that the defendants' replacement filter cartridges infringed the patent, while rejecting the main revocation request. Injunctive relief, information orders, and damages were granted in modified form, with costs split 50/50 for the infringement action and 90/10 against the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH, MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1, relating to MediaTek's 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for confidentiality protection of its submission dated 15.08.2025, made in response to MediaTek Germany GmbH's request for production of license agreements under Rule 190. The court granted partial confidentiality protection, classifying certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, and restricted access to specified named persons on the defendant's side.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. – Withdrawal of Intervention Application v.Ex Parte
This order concerns an application by LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE 365 ITALY S.P.A. to withdraw their application to intervene in appeal proceedings between LAMA France and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, finding that Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure applies by analogy to the withdrawal of an intervention application under Rule 313, and that no costs decision was necessary.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the defendant's request to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a SEP infringement action concerning European Patent EP2380167. The defendant argued that the technical complexity of the MPEG-4 audio standard, the need to prepare a nullity counterclaim, the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations, international litigation coordination, and school holidays of key personnel justified an extension. The court held that the three-month deadline under Rule 23 RoP is already calibrated to accommodate such circumstances, including vacation periods, and that the defendant had been aware of the licensing demands since 2017.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, dated 21 August 2025, concerns Yealink's Request for simultaneous interpretation from English into Mandarin Chinese during an oral hearing scheduled for 22 September 2025 in Luxembourg. Yealink, the defendant in proceedings for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827, argued that interpretation was necessary because it is based in China and its representatives would have difficulty following the proceedings. The Court of Appeal denied the Request, holding that UPC proceedings are adversarial and commercial in nature, that parties must be represented by lawyers or patent attorneys familiar with the language of proceedings, and that the voluntary presence of company officials does not justify court-ordered interpretation.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), to deposit three physical objects (BB40A-C) as evidence in proceedings involving patent EP2432351. The claimant, HL Display AB, opposed the request as untimely. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, finding that BSRP provided no explanation for why the exhibits could not have been filed together with its rejoinder submitted on 20 February 2025.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH v.Fujifilm Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Kodak's applications under R. 262A RoP requesting a confidentiality regime for the appeal proceedings as superfluous. The court held that the existing confidentiality orders issued by the Mannheim Local Division already extended to the appeal proceedings, and that the requirements of the Court's electronic case management system do not override the Rules of Procedure and the Court's case law.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This order concerns the release of a security deposit of EUR 25,000 in a revocation action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court. Following the revocation of Ballinno B.V.'s European patent EP 1 944 067 B1 and the subsequent settlement between the parties, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH requested the release of the security for procedural costs that Ballinno had previously deposited with the Court. Both parties consented to the release, and the Court ordered the transfer of the EUR 25,000 to Kinexon.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.MediaTek Germany GmbH and MediaTek, Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning a patent infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek regarding 5G-capable Dimensity series chips. The order addresses Huawei's application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure to protect the confidentiality of information contained in its submissions regarding license agreements and licensing negotiations. The court classified certain information as confidential and strictly confidential, restricted access to a limited number of named persons on the defendant side, and declined to decide on certain further requests at that stage.