European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 19 of 84 · 2,007 total
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
Microsoft filed a request for rectification under R. 353 RoP seeking to supplement a Court of Appeal decision by default against Suinno with a notice under R. 356.3 RoP that any further decision by default would be final. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that Microsoft's request for discretionary review had not included a R. 356.3 RoP notice request, and therefore the Court was bound by the subject-matter of the proceedings as defined by the parties' requests.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert klein GmbH & expert e-Commerce GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order on August 21, 2025, disregarding a post-hearing submission filed by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. after the oral hearing of July 11, 2025. Viosys had submitted a Rule 9 filing along with a post-hearing brief summarizing its arguments in response to the court's introduction. The court held that under Rule 36 RoP, further submissions require prior court approval and are not permitted after the oral hearing, when the case is ready for decision.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel and Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1, which relates to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on August 21, 2025, concludes the interim proceedings in a combined infringement action and revocation counterclaim between Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S) as plaintiff and two Omni-Pac entities as defendants. The court set out its preliminary view on the relevant skilled person, provided detailed feature breakdowns for patent claims 1 and 6, and issued preparatory directions for the oral hearing.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP2432351, owned by HL Display AB. The defendant, Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. (BSRP), requested to deposit two physical objects as exhibit BB38 to support positions taken in its rejoinder. The claimant opposed the request as untimely, and the court dismissed the application, finding that no adequate explanation was provided for why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.Inventronics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1 in an infringement action. In light of ongoing settlement discussions, the court granted a joint request by both parties to stay the proceedings until resumption upon request of one of the parties, pursuant to Rules 295(d) and 296.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected expert's application for leave to appeal a cost decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had declared expert's application for cost assessment inadmissible as time-barred under R. 151 RoP, having been filed more than one month after the main decision was served via the CMS. The Court of Appeal held that no preliminary reference to the CJEU was necessary, finding that the one-month deadline under R. 151 RoP is not disproportionate and does not violate Art. 69 UPCA or Art. 47 of the EU Charter.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B1. The applicant Occlutech GmbH sought interim measures against the respondents Lepu Medical entities, who raised both infringement and validity objections. The court ordered the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel under Art. 8(5) sentence 2 EPGÜ and R. 34 RoP, with the consent of all parties.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order concerns a Rule 333 review request by Centripetal Limited seeking to overturn the judge-rapporteur's refusal to allow a further written pleading introducing a fifth infringement reading in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The panel confirmed the judge-rapporteur's order, rejecting the request on grounds of procedural fairness, timing constraints, and the Claimant's failure to act promptly on functionalities it had known about for some time. Leave to appeal was not granted.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and Others
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning a deadline extension request in an infringement action involving European Patent EP1969839. The claimant Adeia Guides Inc. sought an extension due to late filing of exhibits 8 and 9 on 5 August 2025, to which the Walt Disney defendants did not object provided their subsequent deadlines were not shortened.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., Ninepoint GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning EP 3 849 157, in which Defendants 2 to 6 (ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUS France S.a.r.l., ASUSTeK Italy S.r.l., ASUS Europe B.V., and Ninepoint GmbH) requested an extension of the time period for filing their statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. The court granted a partial extension of approximately one week, extending the deadline to 30 September 2025, finding that the delayed access to the unredacted version of exhibit BB1 (an agreement between the Claimant and its co-owner) warranted only a limited extension since the relevant assertions were already contained in the unredacted statement of claim.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a definitive correction order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court on August 19, 2025, correcting a cost order (Kostenbeslissing) issued on July 25, 2025. The correction addressed a calculation error in paragraph 46 of the cost order, which had omitted the expert costs of VASQUEZ (€2,200) awarded under paragraph 36, resulting in a corrected total of €43,856.64. The court also clarified that the correction order does not suspend or affect the appeal time limits under R. 221(1) RoP.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co., Ltd., Shanghai Youcheng International Trade Co., Ltd., Hubei Fluorine New Materials Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Benia New Material Technology Co., Ltd.
Procedural order of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the separation of infringement proceedings. The court ordered the separation of proceedings against Defendants 1 and 2 from those against Defendants 3 and 4, as service had been effected on Defendants 1 and 2 but not yet on Defendants 3 and 4, making it unreasonable to delay the proceedings against the served defendants.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
This procedural order of the Local Division The Hague concerns a Rule 333 review of a Judge Rapporteur's order on preliminary objections raised by 15 Moderna entities in two infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning European patents EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. Moderna had challenged the court's international jurisdiction, local jurisdiction, and long-arm jurisdiction over various defendants. The full panel confirmed the Judge Rapporteur's order and dismissed Moderna's request for interim appeal.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd. and Others v.Innovative Sonic Corporation (Application No. APP_33670/2025)
The defendants in a patent infringement action before the Munich Local Division of the UPC applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2765731 was granted. The claimant, Innovative Sonic Corporation, opposed the change. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, and dismissed the claimant's alternative request for oral hearings to be held in German.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3286270, owned by AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. The parties mutually requested a stay of the proceedings until 13 February 2026, which the court granted pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP. The claimant was ordered to inform the court within one week after 13 February whether the case is withdrawn or will resume.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), and Kinexon GmbH
Ballinno B.V. had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide security of €25,000 for the legal costs of the Kinexon companies and UEFA in appeal proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067. After the appeal was adjudicated and the parties entered into a settlement agreement, Kinexon requested release of the security and transfer to its bank account, with consent from both Ballinno and UEFA. The Court of Appeal ordered the release and full transfer of the €25,000 deposit to Kinexon Sports GmbH.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning access restrictions to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities, without having yet lodged an appeal. The Court of Appeal held the applications inadmissible, ruling that suspensive effect cannot be sought before an appeal is lodged, and that even under the extreme urgency provision (R. 223.4 RoP), a Statement of appeal and payment of the appeal fee are prerequisites.
HL Display AB v.Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2432351 owned by HL Display AB against Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. The order addressed several procedural matters including the appointment of a technical judge, use of visual aids, rescheduling of the oral hearing, and setting the value of the dispute at EUR 500,000 for both the claim and counterclaim.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed RiVOLUTiON GmbH's application for suspensive effect (stay) of a first-instance preliminary injunction order. The Local Chamber Munich had ordered RiVOLUTiON to cease offering and selling surgical instruments infringing claim 1 of EP 2 515 768 in Germany, with a penalty payment for non-compliance and a cost reimbursement of €64,000 to Cilag. The Court of Appeal held that evident errors in the first-instance order could not be established without the reasoning being available, and that the balancing of interests did not justify a stay.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust applied for suspensive effect of orders issued by the Paris Local Division concerning restrictions on access to confidential information in two infringement actions against Vivo entities. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications as inadmissible because Sun had not yet lodged a Statement of appeal or paid the appeal fee, which are prerequisites for applying for suspensive effect even in cases of extreme urgency.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 605 534 B1. The court granted the plaintiff Dolby International AB's application under R. 36 RoP for leave to file a further written submission addressing the FRAND objection raised by the defendants Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The court found the additional submission appropriate for reasons of fairness, equity, efficiency, and the right to be heard, noting no prejudice to the defendants and no procedural delay.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned Barco N.V.'s application for leave to change its claim and request for exchange of further written pleadings in proceedings related to alleged infringement of EP 3 732 827. The Court of First Instance (Brussels Local Division) had dismissed Barco's application for provisional measures for lack of urgency. The Court of Appeal denied Barco's application to introduce a subsidiary claim, finding it broadened the original claim without justification for late amendment, and also rejected Barco's requests for further written pleadings and to disregard portions of Yealink's Statement of response.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a €56,000 security for procedural costs that had been deposited with the court. The security had been provided pursuant to an R. 158 RoP order in connection with proceedings concerning European Patent EP1944067. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and the parties' entry into a settlement agreement, the Local Division Hamburg ordered the release of the security to the Defendants and the closure of the cost decision procedure.