European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 2 of 84 · 2,007 total
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch DOO, Robert Bosch France S.A.S., Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A., Robert Bosch Produkcie S.A., Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the Bosch defendants for revision of an earlier order rejecting their preliminary objections to the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court addressed the two conditions of Article 33.1(b) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court for establishing jurisdiction over multiple defendants, holding that the commercial link requirement applies between all defendants collectively and that the 'same alleged infringement' condition refers to infringement of the same patent rather than identity of the infringing products. The panel rejected the revision request, confirmed the Paris Local Division's jurisdiction, and granted leave to appeal.
HyGear B.V. v.Topsoe A/S (Language of Proceedings Order)
HyGear B.V., a defendant in main proceedings concerning EP3802413 (hydrogen production by steam methane reforming), requested the Local Division Düsseldorf to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the balancing of interests favored HyGear, particularly given the accelerated nature of the proceedings and the need for efficient communication among defendants without reliance on translations.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH a.o.
This case before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerned an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 605 534, which relates to audio/video codecs used in smart TVs. The court addressed the FRAND defense raised by the defendants, examining whether Dolby held a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU and whether the defendants complied with the Huawei v. ZTE negotiation program. The court found in favor of Dolby on the infringement claim (granting injunction, information, and damages) and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
The Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow's appeal against the Milan Central Division's denial of its requests under R. 262.2 RoP to classify certain business information as confidential. The court held that trade secrets or confidential information lose their protected character when disclosed to the opposing party without a R. 262A RoP order or other restriction, and that a R. 262.2 RoP request does not automatically prevent the other party from disclosing the information.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities and Romed N.V.) for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP against the claimant Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS) in infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 107 487 B1. The defendants argued that LABS, incorporated in Costa Rica, posed an enforcement risk because Costa Rica had not ratified the Hague Judgement Convention and there was no precedent for enforcing UPC costs orders there. The Court ordered LABS to provide security of €600,000 within 21 days, either by deposit into a UPC account or by bank guarantee from an EU-licensed bank.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH infringed claim 2 of European Patent EP 3 398 487 B1 (owned by CUP&CINO) through its ALPINA Latte Perfetto Duo milk frother. The court dismissed ALPINA's counterclaim for revocation of the patent and granted relief including an injunction, destruction orders, information obligations, and recall orders, while holding that advertising materials are exempt from destruction under Art. 64(2)(e) UPCA.
Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, Maguin SAS v.Tiru
This case before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court (Paris seat) concerned revocation actions against European patent EP 3 178 578 B1 owned by Tiru, relating to a waste incineration installation and associated process. The claimants (Veolia Propreté, Valinea Energie, and Maguin SAS) sought revocation of the patent on grounds including Article 123(3) EPC (extension of protection), prior public use, and lack of inventive step. The court rejected the revocation requests and maintained the patent in modified form according to Tiru's subsidiary request 2.0 (rectified version), with costs split 60% to the claimants and 40% to Tiru.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed appeals by Vivo against orders of the Paris Local Division that had rejected Vivo's preliminary objections challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over FRAND-related claims. The court held that the Paris LD properly exercised its discretion in deferring the admissibility decision on the FRAND determination claim to the main proceedings, and that the panel (rather than only the judge-rapporteur) was competent to make such a deferral decision.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1, directed at a method and arrangement for generating a laser beam with different beam profile characteristics using a multi-clad fiber. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the infringement claim against IPG Laser's 'YLS-AMB' series fiber lasers, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered the defendant to bear 90% of the costs of the infringement proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
This order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The defendants applied for security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP, arguing the claimant's financial position posed a serious risk of non-recovery. The Court partially granted the request, ordering the claimant to provide security of €75,000 within six weeks, reduced from the requested €112,000, while rejecting the claimant's argument that its SME status should preclude or further reduce the security.
Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. v.Spruce Biosciences, Inc.
This case concerned a revocation action filed by Neurocrine Biosciences against Spruce Biosciences's European patent EP 3 784 233, relating to methods for treating testicular and ovarian adrenal rest tumors. During the proceedings, the European Patent Office Opposition Division revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty, and Spruce chose not to appeal. The Court disposed of the revocation action as devoid of purpose under R. 360 RoP, awarded Neurocrine 80% of the maximum recoverable costs (EUR 488,000), and ordered partial reimbursement of court fees.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, OpenAI LP, OpenAI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, Truepic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity v.Keeex SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court reversed the Paris Local Division's order that had rejected preliminary objections challenging its international jurisdiction in a patent infringement action brought by Keeex SAS concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that the UPC's jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1215/2012 is limited to the territory of UPC member states and cannot extend to alleged infringement of national patent parts in non-member states such as Switzerland, Spain, the UK, Ireland, Norway, and Poland.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 669 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent with effect for France and Germany, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., Berlin-Chemie AG, A. Menarini Diagnostics Frankreich SASU v.F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to EP 1 962 668. The applicants (Roche entities) had obtained an interim measures order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf, which the respondents (Menarini entities) appealed. Following an out-of-court settlement, the applicants withdrew their application for interim measures, and the respondents consented. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was unfounded.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present conclusive evidence of infringement and that its application for production of evidence (including source code inspection) was speculative and unsupported.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC brought an infringement action against three Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 552 669, which relates to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent for France and Germany, dismissed the Claimant's application to amend the patent, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs, finding that the Claimant had failed to substantiate its infringement allegations.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 743 812 concerning dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). Qualcomm filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that the application for production of source code evidence was unjustified.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated a.o.
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities regarding European Patent EP 1 552 399 (relating to integrated circuits with network-on-chip interconnects), while the Qualcomm defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement allegations in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was speculative and unsupported.
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG v.NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH
BFexaQC AG and ParTec AG sued NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH for infringement of European Patent No. EP 3 743 812, which concerns the dynamic assignment of heterogeneous computing resources over application runtime. NVIDIA filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action and, since the patent was found not infringed regardless of validity, did not decide on the counterclaim for revocation. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L. v.Align Technology, Inc.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendants' request for discretionary review of a Procedural Order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning patent EP 4 295 806. The Local Division had retroactively extended the Applicant's deadline to file a reply after the Applicant submitted an incorrect document from another case due to human error. The Court of Appeal held that the Local Division correctly applied Rule 9.3(a) RoP rather than Rule 320 RoP, and that the impugned Order was not manifestly incorrect.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.