European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 2 of 92 · 2,185 total
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted NVIDIA's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing NVIDIA to file an out-of-time appeal and appeal brief against the Local Division Munich's decision of March 11, 2026, concerning EP 3 743 812. The respondents (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG) did not oppose the application. The court found that NVIDIA could not reasonably have known that a separate appeal was required for its conditional nullity counterclaim until the Court of Appeal's clarification order of July 16, 2026 in the Emboline v. AorticLab case.
Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Centripetal Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Keysight's application for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, allowing it to lodge an appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's decision not to rule on its conditional counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 821 580. The Court found that Keysight could not reasonably have been expected to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal's 16 July 2026 order in Emboline v. AorticLab clarified the procedural pathway for conditional counterclaimants. The Court also rejected Centripetal's request to shorten or modify the three-month time limit for filing the Statement of response under R. 235.1 RoP.
2seventy bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson and Others (EP 3 689 383)
This order from the UPC Local Division Brussels addressed procedural matters in consolidated proceedings concerning EP 3 689 383, a patent owned by the United States of America (NIH). The court dismissed the NIH's request to be reclassified as co-claimant in the infringement action brought by 2seventy bio, Inc. against Janssen and Legend Biotech defendants, while recognizing NIH as defendant in the counterclaims for revocation. The court also dismissed the defendants' R. 190 RoP applications to produce evidence from the NIH regarding laboratory notebooks, inventor disclosures, grant applications, and prior notice documentation.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Paris Local Division following a case management conference in a patent infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP2949070 held by KEEEX SAS. The order addresses the value of the dispute (estimated at €6,622,802,000), the prospects for amicable resolution, the main legal points to be argued at the oral hearing, and the practical arrangements for the hearing scheduled for October 6, 2026. The core dispute centers on the interpretation of patent claims relating to digital identification fingerprints versus digital signatures, the validity of the patent against prior art, and alleged infringement by the defendants.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. ETRI had filed a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms entities in December 2025, and Meta had filed a counterclaim for revocation in May 2026. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, they withdrew their respective actions and the Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Sidel Participations SAS v.OMNIA Technologies S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sidel Participations SAS challenging the Central Division Paris's rejection of a Preliminary objection. The core issue was whether the UPC has competence to hear an action for a declaration of non-infringement of patents filed before their grant. The Court held that this is a question of admissibility rather than competence, and that the UPC has competence under Art. 32(1)(b) UPCA for declarations of non-infringement of patents.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against several Samsung Electronics entities regarding European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court found the patent as granted lacked novelty over prior art D1 (US 2006/263048 A1), and all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, resulting in the revocation of the patent in its entirety and dismissal of the infringement action.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd. brought an infringement action against multiple Samsung Electronics entities concerning European Patent No. 2 403 266 B1, which relates to a portable terminal with a display unit and an information processing apparatus enabling content display to be passed between devices. Samsung filed a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety, finding it lacked novelty as granted over prior art and that all auxiliary requests either lacked inventive step or contained unallowable added subject matter, and dismissed the infringement action with costs awarded to Samsung.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned European patent EP 3 471 419. Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against Meta Platforms and related entities, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested proportional reimbursement of court fees.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_1310/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_1737/2026) concerning EP 4 024 777, filed by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities. The court ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to both sides, rejecting the claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants (VeyorEx, Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech) for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor known as the 'Bendy Boom.' The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent after the termination of a prior licence agreement, while dismissing the revocation counterclaim.
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Meta Platforms, Inc. et al.
This is a procedural decision of the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 471 419. Both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions—Huawei's infringement action and the Meta defendants' counterclaim for revocation—and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a proportional 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc. (UPC-CoA-121/2026)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected AMMS's appeal against a cost decision ordering it to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs within four weeks. The court held that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA for appeals against revocation decisions does not extend to separate cost proceedings, and that the Court of First Instance did not exceed its discretion in refusing to stay the cost proceedings or order payment by instalments.
NovaCloud Licensing LLC v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Edge Network Services Limited, and Meta Platforms Ireland Limited
This case before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned EP 4 024 777 and involved a patent infringement action by NovaCloud Licensing LLC against Meta Platforms and related entities, along with a counterclaim for revocation. Before the closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective actions and requested reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each side, rejecting the Claimant's request for a 60% reimbursement.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. v.VeyorEx B.V. et al.
Honeywell Control Systems Ltd. sued multiple defendants including VeyorEx B.V., Solvest entities, Solvink, De Kleine Beuk, and Hemtech for direct infringement of European Patent EP 2 563 695 B1, which relates to a telescopic belt conveyor. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found that five of the seven defendants infringed the patent through the manufacture and sale of the 'Bendy Boom' telescopic belt conveyor after termination of a prior licence agreement, and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the appeal by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG against the dismissal of its patent infringement claim and the appeal by Vibrantz GmbH against the partial nullity of EP 3 215 288. The court upheld the Local Division Munich's finding that Vibrantz's use of the patented metal sintering preparation in Germany was lawful under a prior use right, and therefore could not establish a threat of infringement in France, Italy, and Romania. The court also confirmed the partial revocation of the French, Italian, and Romanian parts of the patent based on lack of inventive step.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning patent EP 3 841 735 held by In(k)control BV. Following a Rule 296.3 RoP order on September 3, 2026, defendant Esko filed a request for leave of appeal and extension of time, which was subsequently withdrawn after the parties reached a joint agreement on an adjusted briefing schedule. The court accepted the joint request, extending Esko's deadline for the Statement of Defence to November 2, 2026, and In(k)control's reply deadline to February 2, 2027, while acknowledging that this would exceed the one-year target for proceedings.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both appeals in a patent infringement and revocation dispute concerning EP 3 215 288, a metal sintering preparation patent. The court upheld the Local Chamber Munich's decision that the infringement action was entirely dismissed and that the patent was partially revoked in France, Italy, and Romania. The court found that the defendant's prior use rights in Germany precluded a threat of infringement, and that no concrete infringing acts or preparatory acts existed for France, Italy, and Romania.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This is an order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Brussels concerning an application by Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV for security for costs to be provided by In(k)control BV under R. 158 RoP in infringement proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 841 735. The court found that the conditions for requiring security were met given In(k)control's precarious financial position, including negative equity, assets consisting primarily of the patent in suit, and doubts about continuity. Using its discretionary power, the court set the security at €75,000, rejecting both Esko's primary request of €400,000 and In(k)control's offer of €19,000.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717, with Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd as intervenor. The order, issued following the second interim hearing of September 11, 2026, addresses case management matters including the confirmation of the oral hearing date of February 2, 2027, the admission of amended pleadings reflecting the patent's limitation before the EPO, the partial rejection of Yunex's submissions as untimely, and the allocation of oral argument time. The parallel nullity action before the Central Chamber Paris had been dismissed on June 25, 2026, and the patent's limited version was published on April 8, 2026.
DivX, LLC v.Netflix Services Germany GmbH et al.
DivX, LLC sued multiple Netflix entities before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Munich for indirect infringement of European Patent with Unitary Effect EP 4 213 033, directed to a video distribution system with progressive playback. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court maintained the patent in amended form based on the plaintiff's auxiliary request, found indirect infringement of claim 1, and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting obligations, and a finding of liability for damages, while ordering the defendants to bear the costs of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
ToolGen, Inc. v.Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated & Lonza Netherlands B.V.
ToolGen, Inc. initiated infringement proceedings in the UPC Local Division The Hague against Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Lonza Netherlands, alleging that the product Casgevy.13 infringes its European patent EP 4 397 760 relating to CRISPR compositions. The defendants filed two applications: a Rule 190 application seeking production of documents obtained through disclosure in parallel UK proceedings, and a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of ToolGen's claims for injunctive and corrective relief as manifestly bound to fail. The judge-rapporteur dismissed both applications, holding that the defendants could not circumvent UK disclosure restrictions via a UPC order and that the Rule 361 application was not appropriate for the fact-intensive assessment required.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI Tech GmbH, MGI Tech Co., Limited, BGI Hangzhou CycloneSeq Technology Co., Ltd, and Shenzhen BGI Genomics Co., Ltd
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC sought provisional measures from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Munich against four MGI/BGI respondents for alleged infringement of four European patents through the marketing and sale of 'Cyclone Devices' (sequencers and flow cells). The court separated the proceedings, dismissing the application against Respondents 2-4 for lack of jurisdiction and evidence, but granted extensive provisional measures against MGI Tech GmbH, including injunctive relief, delivery-up orders, information orders, and penalty payments in respect of EP 2 422 198 B1 and EP 2 715 343 B1.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1. Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, Ericsson withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the 50% default rate, citing the exceptional procedural burden caused by parallel filings across UPC divisions.