European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 19 of 67 · 1,592 total
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for seeking suspensive effect in patent litigation. The court ruled that an application for a stay of proceedings is inadmissible if it is filed before the formal Statement of appeal has been lodged and the associated fees paid. This ruling reinforces the principle that legal interest must be established through proper appellate procedure, even when urgency is claimed.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V.; Troy Chemie GmbH; Azelis Group N.V.; Azelis SA; Azelis Netherlands B.V.; Azelis Benelux
In a recent procedural order, the UPC granted a stay to an infringement action involving AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC and several defendants including Troy Chemical Company B.V. The parties mutually requested the pause of proceedings until February 13, 2026. This decision highlights the court's flexibility in managing complex litigation timelines, allowing both claimant and defendant time to prepare or resolve underlying issues before proceeding with the infringement claims.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in patent litigation. The claimant, Sun Patent Trust, sought to suspend an order from the Court of First Instance before formally lodging its appeal. The court ruled that even under provisions allowing for extreme urgency, a formal Statement of appeal and payment of fees are prerequisites for such an application to be admissible. This ruling reinforces the procedural rigor required when challenging interim decisions within the UPC framework.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
HL Display AB initiated an infringement action against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. concerning patent EP2432351. This procedural order sets the stage for the main trial by rescheduling the oral hearing to August 22, 2025, and formally establishing the financial value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both sides. The parties agreed on all procedural points, including the appointment of a technical judge.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the release of security for legal costs following a settlement agreement. Ballinno B.V., who had provided €25,000 in security, successfully petitioned the court to have this amount released and transferred to Kinexon Sports GmbH. The ruling confirms that even when not explicitly covered by the rules, procedural provisions can be applied analogously to facilitate the conclusion of litigation.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications from Barco N.V., which sought leave to change its infringement claim and requested an exchange of further written pleadings against Yealink. The court denied the request for a claim amendment because it broadened the scope without sufficient justification regarding prior diligence. Furthermore, the application for more written exchanges was rejected as no new facts or evidence were introduced by the respondent. This ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements within UPC proceedings concerning claim amendments and the introduction of new arguments.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH; Arçelik A.Ş
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Dolby International AB to submit an additional written statement concerning the FRAND objection raised by Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found that granting this request was necessary for fairness and ensuring all parties had a full opportunity to address complex arguments regarding standard essential patents (SEPs). This decision highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing procedural timelines, particularly when dealing with intricate FRAND defenses.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully sought provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC action concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling was significant for establishing jurisdiction over international companies operating through EU Authorized Representatives, confirming that these representatives can act as 'anchor defendants' under Brussels I rules. This decision provides clarity on how IP rights holders can enforce their patents against global supply chains anchored by local intermediaries. The case underscores the practical application of cross-border legal principles within the UPC framework, particularly regarding product safety regulations and distribution networks.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This UPC decision addresses the release of a security deposit provided by the applicant in a cost dispute. The Court ruled that when parties reach an inter partes settlement regarding legal costs, the security can be transferred to the beneficiary to finalize the matter. This ruling clarifies the practical application of procedural rules concerning financial guarantees and settlements within the UPC framework.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully obtained provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC case concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling is highly significant as it leverages EU product safety regulations to establish international jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers, using their Authorized Representative (AR) as an 'anchor defendant.' This decision strengthens the enforcement power of the UPC by making ARs liable for injunctions.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. concerns the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering systems for monitoring food waste in commercial kitchens. The Court of First Instance delivered a detailed ruling on the merits, addressing both infringement claims and procedural applications. Notably, the court imposed significant cost obligations on Winnow Solutions Limited while also providing guidance on cost allocation in cases involving partial revocation.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
In a significant decision regarding generic drug competition, the UPC Court of Appeal granted provisional measures in favor of Boehringer Ingelheim against Zentiva. The court held that the completion of national health technology assessments and reimbursement procedures for generics can constitute an imminent infringement threat, even before market launch. This ruling reinforces the proactive nature of the UPC's jurisdiction across all member states, providing a strong deterrent against premature generic entry.
Moderna, Inc. v.Genevant Sciences GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving Moderna and Genevant Sciences, the Court addressed a procedural application seeking an extension of time to file responses following extensive confidentiality proceedings (R.262A). The Judge-rapporteur ruled that while extensions are generally viewed narrowly, the delay in accessing unredacted confidential information justified a limited extension for the claimants. This decision reinforces the balance between maintaining the UPC's swift procedural timeline and ensuring parties have adequate time to prepare their defense against complex claims.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
This UPC decision between Winnow Solutions Limited and Orbisk B.V. addresses the infringement of EP 3198245, a patent covering food waste monitoring systems. The court provided detailed rulings on cost allocation in complex litigation scenarios involving partial revocation. The judgment is significant for practitioners as it clarifies the financial consequences when a patent's validity is only challenged or upheld partially.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addresses the protection of confidential information in a complex infringement and revocation action concerning surfing technology (EP 2 728 089 B1). The Court meticulously defined which technical details within the defense statements and briefs must be classified as confidential. This ruling reinforces the strict confidentiality protocols available under the UPC framework, ensuring that sensitive commercial information remains protected during litigation.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH / Cisco Systems, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural application concerning the extension of deadlines in an ongoing infringement case involving Cisco and Lionra Technologies Ltd., relating to EP 2 201 740. The core issue was balancing the need for adequate time for Cisco to respond, given late access to confidential information, against the urgency required by Lionra. The Court ultimately granted a two-week extension, allowing the appeal process to continue.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
In a procedural ruling within the Düsseldorf Local Court, the UPC addressed the language of proceedings for infringement case UPC_CFI_496/2025. Headwater Research LLC is suing Samsung Electronics entities over patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested that the court switch the procedural language to English, matching the language of the granted patent. The Court accepted this request, ensuring the case will proceed in English.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that Syntorr LP provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addresses a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case involving Syntorr LP and Arthrex. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that the Claimant provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This procedural order in the UPC case concerning EP 4 108 413 addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant to amend its revocation proceedings by introducing new prior art. The court rejected this application, reinforcing strict rules regarding the late introduction of evidence under Rule 263 RoP. The decision highlights the importance of due diligence in patent searches and the procedural necessity of preventing undue delay or prejudice to the defendant's defense.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
In a procedural order concerning cost proceedings, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim ruled in favor of Hurom Co., Ltd., granting protection for confidential information related to legal representation costs. Specifically, the court classified the detailed breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as strictly confidential under R. 262A RoP and Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the principle that professional client-attorney privilege extends to cost documentation within UPC proceedings, safeguarding sensitive operational details.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - CNRS, Université de Rennes v.EPO
This UPC decision addressed an appeal challenging the EPO's rejection of a unitary effect application for EP3691518. The claimants, including Bodycap and CNRS, sought to overturn the administrative rejection based on minor procedural errors regarding their address details. However, the UPC upheld the EPO's decision, emphasizing strict adherence to deadlines and legal certainty in the context of unitary patent procedures. This case serves as a strong reminder that procedural compliance is mandatory when applying for unitary effect.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS v.Amgen Inc.
In a procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf stayed infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 252 857. The stay was granted because the issues raised in this case are substantially identical to those currently under appeal regarding patent EP 3 536 712. This decision prioritizes judicial efficiency and proper administration of justice, preventing redundant litigation while respecting fundamental rights.