European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 2 of 79 · 1,878 total
1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7on v.1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.
This case before the UPC Court of First Instance (The Hague Local Division) concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against Moderna and related entities regarding EP4241767, along with a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-607/2025). Both parties jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims pursuant to Rule 265.1 RoP, having reached a settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedin
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. and Others
This is a case management order issued by the Hague Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP2590626 owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT'). The order addresses the admission of new exhibits into the proceedings, including the Cayman 2024 Report and the 2021 BioNTech Website, and clarifies the scope of inventive step attacks and auxiliary requests that PBNT may rely on at the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2026.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal lodged by Windhager as inadmissible because the Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1(a) RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication is insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement does not fall within the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's subsequent application for re-establishment of rights, made during the oral hearing, was also rejected as inadmissible because the six-month time limit under Rule 320.2 RoP had already expired.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., vertreten durch die Geschäfts, ihren Vorsitzenden Herrn Yoshinari Kitajima, 1-1-1, Ichigaya v.Zapp AG, vertreten durch den Vorstand, Dr. Stefan Seng (Vors, Zapp Precision Metals GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsfüh
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order concerning a request for simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for an oral hearing scheduled for September 17, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. (Japan), sought court-arranged simultaneous interpretation at procedural cost, while the defendants, Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH (Germany), opposed that aspect. Applying a two-step test, the court found that simultaneous interpretation was appropriate but not at procedural cost, granting the plaintiff permission to hire its own interpreters under Rule 109.4 RoP who may use the courtroom's simultaneous interpretation equipment.
Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 relating to a child seat system. Cybex GmbH, the patent holder, had obtained an order finding it more likely than not that both direct and indirect patent infringement occurred. After initially indicating intent to enforce the order, Cybex declared it would not enforce the disclaimer portion of the indirect infringement ruling. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a valid waiver of enforcement could eliminate the need for legal protection regarding the suspensive effect application.
SharkNinja Operating LLC, Needham, MA, United States v.Groupe SEB France, Écully, France, Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH, Geislingen an der Steige, Germ
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Paris Local Division's dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures against SEB regarding European patent EP 3 689 198, a cooking system patent. The Court of Appeal found the appeal well-founded, holding that the Paris Local Division erred in finding the relevant claims more likely than not invalid for lack of novelty over prior art (Tredy/CN 202312830 U). The Court ordered SEB to cease and desist from infringing activities in France and Germany, subject to penalty payments, and to provisionally reimburse SharkNinja's costs.
Bekaert v.Siltronic
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation proceeding brought by Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The dispute centers on the scope of disclosure of the expert's detailed description to the applicant, particularly regarding the protection of confidential information. The Düsseldorf Local Division applied its three-step test from the prior Bekaert v. Siltronic decision, ruling on the relevance of confidential information and the redaction obligations.
guines, 95800 Cergy, Frankreich v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a confidentiality request filed by Valeo Electrification in interim injunction proceedings against SEG Automotive Germany GmbH regarding European Patent 3 645 903. The applicant sought to restrict access to certain unredacted documents and information to a limited 'Confidentiality Club' of legal representatives and specific individuals. After the parties agreed on a circle of four persons to be included in the confidentiality club, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf ruled that the request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure was admissible and substantively successful, while addressing the respondent's objections regarding the differentiation between public and party-specific confidentiality.
Orange SA, and other representatives of Bardehle Pagenberg v.HMD Global Oy, Orange SA
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to audio decoding under the MPEG-4 Part 3-AAC standard, sued HMD Global Oy for patent infringement regarding HMD smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or higher. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, an exhaustion objection, and a FRAND defence, and later requested that the counterclaim for revocation be made conditional on a finding of infringement. The Paris Local Division accepted the conditional counterclaim approach and examined infringement first, ultimately finding that Orange failed to prove infringement because the Claimant's demonstration relied on additional corrective information inconsistent with the technical teaching of the patent.
LS9 GmbH, Garmischer Str. 9, 81373 München v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH, Birkenstr. 22, 88285 Bodnegg-Rotheidlen
LS9 GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 (a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip) owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, arguing that LS9 GmbH, whose corporate purpose is organizing seminars and publications, was not sufficiently concerned by the patent. The Central Division (Milan) ruled that legal persons always have standing in revocation actions and dismissed the revocation action only insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of auxiliary request 1, with court costs split equally.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf found claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked inventive step but upheld it in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while claim 6 was held valid; the infringement action was dismissed on the merits. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeal consolidated the proceedings to address the cross-appeals regarding validity and infringement.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 755 901, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann Packaging A/S, the patent proprietor, brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac entities regarding 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf had partially revoked the patent, upholding claim 1 only in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while maintaining claim 6 as granted, and dismissed the infringement action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the priority claims, novelty, and inventive step issues across multiple appeal proceedings.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
This case concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 465 265 before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the defendants (multiple Disney entities) by brief of 6 August 2026. The defendants raised no objections, and the court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris issued an order regarding a request by the defendants (parties from Liechtenstein) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court rejected the request, holding that there is no legal basis for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, unlike for Local and Regional Divisions. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English.
AorticLab, srl, Colleretto Giacosa, TO, Italy, and patent attorneys of André Roland SA, Lausanne, Switzerla v.Emboline Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights in proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425. Emboline Inc. had filed an infringement action against AorticLab, srl, and AorticLab had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on a finding of infringement. The Local Division Munich found no infringement and did not decide on the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, re-established AorticLab's right to appeal, declared its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal admissible, and set a two-month time period for Emboline's Statement of response.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., No.88 Weilai 3rd Road, Leonard Lotz, Bird & Bird LLP, Am Sandtorkai 50, 20457 v.Micron Technology, Inc., 8000 South Federal Way Boise, Idaho, Micron Europe Ltd., Venture House 2 Arlington Square, Downsh
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 909 047, the Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's access to confidential technical information about their Z01M die, requesting either an 'attorneys' eyes only' order or access limited to a single employee, with a five-year bar on SDRAM-related work. The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected the 'attorneys' eyes only' order and the five-year professional bar as disproportionate, but granted access to four named employees of the Claimant. The Court also permitted the Defendants to withdraw the Z01M die submission by 20 August 2026 to avoid potential breaches of US export control restrictions.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant (Boa Technologies Inc.) filed an Application for Permission to lodge subsequent Auxiliary Requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) under Rule 30(2) RoP in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants regarding the feature 'via a rotation of the knob (1202) in the second direction.' The Judge-Rapporteur stayed the assessment of the Application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, invited the Claimant to file an additional pleading by 21 August 2026 addressing the consequences of the CoA Decision of 13 July 2026 (FujiFilm/Kodak), and granted the Defendants an extended deadline until 28 September 2026 to submit their Rejoinder.
Yellow Sphere & Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert (EP 3 356 109)
This is a final decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary expertise, the interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, the non-mandatory nature of step ordering in process claims, the disclosure content of prior art, and the temporal applicability of the UPCA's substantive provisions to facts arising before June 1, 2023.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend its case by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6, corresponding to AR PO-3D from EPO opposition proceedings) in its infringement action against Yealink entities regarding EP 3 732 827. The application was filed on 4 August 2026 following the EPO Opposition Division's oral hearing on 17-18 June 2026, where BARCO defended the patent on the basis of newly introduced auxiliary requests not previously filed in the UPC proceedings. The Court addressed whether BARCO should be permitted to amend its case at this late stage, considering principles of procedural efficiency and the interplay between UPC and EPO proceedings.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This procedural order concerns BARCO NV's application to amend European Patent EP 3 732 827 by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) in UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_806/2025) and related counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the application, holding that the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, that BARCO failed to abide by principles of procedural efficiency, and that BARCO did not sufficiently demonstrate the connection between the proposed changes and Yealink's specific invalidity arguments. The Court granted leave to appeal.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural issues arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings involving Qualcomm. The court examined whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were admissible given the applicable 15-day time limit, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The court held that the appeals against the dismissal of the Rule 190 applications were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period, and that the refiled Rule 190 application on appeal was inadmissible as it sought substantially the same evidence already rejected at first instance without new justifying facts.
UPC Decision UPC_AEE424C001 v.Respondent
This is an end decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles (Leitsätze) addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary knowledge, interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, order of process steps, disclosure content of prior publications, and the temporal applicability of substantive provisions of the UPCA (EPGÜ). The court clarified that the UPC's jurisdiction does not require substantive application of the UPCA, and that completed factual situations predating June 1, 2023 are governed by national law, while ongoing infringements and future remedies fall under the UPCA.
Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States v.Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States
The Court of Appeal addressed procedural questions arising from appeals filed by Network System Technologies LLC (NST) against decisions of the Munich Local Division in three infringement proceedings concerning European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The central issues were whether NST's appeals against the dismissal of its Rule 190 evidence production applications were timely, and whether a new Rule 190 application filed for the first time during appeal proceedings was admissible. The Court held that the 15-day appeal period under Article 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 224.1(b) RoP applied to orders on Rule 190 applications, that NST's appeals were inadmissible as they were filed outside the mandatory time limit, and that the refiled Rule 190 application was inadmissible as it was substantially the same as the one already dismissed at first instance without any new facts justifying refiling.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.1) Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.,, 2) Roborock Germany GmbH,
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an infringement action brought by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against three Roborock entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device). The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation of the patent, which was made dependent on a finding of infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim, and the court allocated costs at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants.