European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 20 of 84 · 2,007 total
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of 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 granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, LDA
Boehringer Ingelheim, proprietor of European patent EP 1 830 843 covering nintedanib for treating fibrotic diseases including idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), sought provisional measures against Zentiva, which held Portuguese marketing authorisations for generic nintedanib products and had completed national pricing and reimbursement procedures. The Lisbon Local Division denied the application, finding no imminent infringement, but the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that completion of national health technology assessment, pricing and reimbursement procedures can constitute imminent infringement. The Court of Appeal granted a provisional injunction against Zentiva across all UPC territories where the patent is in force, coupled with recurring penalty payments, and ordered Zentiva to pay €199,000 in interim costs.
Orbisk B.V. v.Winnow Solutions Limited
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. Orbisk counterclaimed for revocation. The court found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request) that was not infringed by Orbisk's product, resulting in partial revocation of the patent and an order for Winnow to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns an application by the Moderna claimants under Rule 9.3(a) of the Rules of Procedure to extend the deadline for filing their Reply to the defence and Statement of Defence in the Counterclaim for Revocation. The Court partly rejected the application, granting a limited extension until 24 September 2025 rather than the requested 4 October 2025, taking into account the delayed access to unredacted confidential information due to the R.262A confidentiality proceedings.
Winnow Solutions Limited v.Orbisk B.V.
Winnow Solutions Limited, proprietor of European Patent EP 3198245 relating to a system and method for monitoring food waste, sued Orbisk B.V. for patent infringement. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) found the patent valid only in a limited amended form (auxiliary request 3) and held that Orbisk's product did not infringe the patent as so limited. The counterclaim for revocation was partially successful, with some claims revoked and others upheld, and Winnow was ordered to pay 85% of Orbisk's costs.
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH, WhiteWater Era GmbH, WhiteWater West Industries Ltd., Endless Surf Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 728 089 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. The Claimant, American Wave Machines, Inc., is involved in infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation against four Defendants. The court amended its prior order of 1 August 2025 to classify certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential and to restrict access to unredacted versions of the parties' briefs and exhibits.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH & Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time limits in an appeal proceedings related to EP 2 201 740. The Court of Appeal extended the deadline for Cisco to file its response to the appeal and its cross-appeal by two weeks, until October 3, 2025, finding that Cisco's requested one-month extension was unreasonably long while Lionra's requested one-week extension was unreasonably short.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 110 072 B1. Both parties jointly requested a change of the language of proceedings to the language of the patent. The court granted the request, ordering that the proceedings language be changed to English pursuant to Art. 49(3) EPGÜ and R. 321 RoP.
Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V. v.Ex Parte
Procedural Order
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants (Arthrex entities) for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 2 670 898. The court held that the claimant's litigation insurance with anti-avoidance endorsement did not constitute adequate security under Rule 158(1) RoP, and ordered the claimant to provide security of EUR 2,000,000 by 30 September 2025, either by bank guarantee or deposit in the UPC's account.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH (EP 4 108 413)
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns a request for review of a judge-rapporteur's order that had dismissed CeraCon GmbH's application to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413 by introducing a new novelty attack based on Euro-PCT application EP 3 868 480 A1. The panel confirmed the earlier order, holding that the amendment was excluded under R. 263.2(a) RoP because CeraCon failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the prior art. The request for review was rejected.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned a defendants' application for cost assessment of attorney fees incurred in an appeal proceeding against an order for security for costs under R. 158 RoP. The court rejected the application as inadmissible, holding that costs arising from procedural orders, including security for cost orders, cannot be assessed in a separate cost assessment proceeding under R. 150 RoP but must instead be included in the overall cost assessment following the substantive decision. The court further held that, in any event, the application had become moot due to the unified cost decision rendered in the substantive decision of 06.06.2025.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns an application by Hurom Co., Ltd. under Rule 262A RoP to classify the breakdown of attorneys' hours worked as confidential information in cost proceedings related to EP 2 028 981. The court held that the breakdown of hours worked qualifies as confidential information protected under R. 262A RoP, as it relates to attorney-client privileged information. However, the court rejected the Applicant's request to restrict access to only the Respondents' lawyers, holding that such restriction would violate the Respondents' right to be heard under R. 262A.6 RoP.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 252 857. The Claimants (Sanofi and Regeneron) requested a stay of the infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation pending the outcome of an appeal in a related case (UPC_CFI_505/2024) concerning patent EP 3 536 712. The Court granted the stay, finding that the infringement question in the present case involves the same factual and legal questions as the related case, and that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources.
Bodycap, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) and Université de Rennes v.EPO
The patent proprietors of European patent EP3691518 appealed the EPO's rejection of their request for unitary effect. The rejection stemmed from an incorrect address for one of the three proprietors in the unitary effect request and a four-day delay in remedying the irregularity. The court rejected the appeal, holding that the deadline under Rule 7.3 of the Rules on Unitary Patent Protection is strict and non-extendable, and that interlocutory revision under Rule 91 RoP does not apply to Rule 97(1) proceedings.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 697 391 B1, addressing the Claimant's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information. The court classified certain information highlighted in gray in the Defendant's Application for a cost decision as confidential and restricted access to a defined confidentiality club. The Defendant's argument that the number of individuals granted access should correspond to parallel proceedings was rejected.
igus GmbH v.Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 912 243 B1, which protects a compact line guide for clean room applications. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, alleged that the Chinese defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., infringed the patent by offering a 'CPY' line guide at the Hannover Messe and through associated catalog distribution. Because the defendant failed to appear or respond, the court granted the plaintiff's claims in full, including a finding of infringement, an injunction, recall and information orders, and provisional cost reimbursement.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG, Cybex Retail GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 1 905 615. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 of the Rules of Procedure to jointly hear the patent infringement action brought by Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. against the Cybex entities and the counterclaim for revocation, rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of efficiency and to ensure that validity and infringement are decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS (formerly Virdia Inc.)
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800 before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court. The Claimant sought permission under Rule 36 RoP to file further written pleadings in response to the Defendant's Rejoinder. The Judge-rapporteur rejected the request, finding it admissible but not well-founded, as the Claimant failed to demonstrate that due process principles required an additional round of written pleadings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerning a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_162/2024) relating to European Patent EP 2 028 981. The court partially granted the Defendant's request for an extension of time to comment on the Claimant's penalty payment request, extending the deadline by two weeks (until 20 August 2025) instead of the three weeks requested. The court reasoned that the discretion to extend time periods must be exercised narrowly, and that the time needed to remedy information deficiencies is distinct from the time needed to comment on a penalty request.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patents EP 3 398 487, EP 3 281 569, and EP 3 610 762. The court decided, with the agreement of both parties, to hear the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ, making an early decision on the course of action before the conclusion of the written procedure.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 548 898 B1, in which the court decided to add a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim measures proceedings. The respondent had challenged both infringement and the validity of the patent in its opposition to the application for interim measures, leading the presiding judge to conclude that early addition of a technically qualified judge was appropriate and necessary.
Moderna, Inc. et al. v.Arbutus Biopharma Corporation & Genevant Sciences GmbH
This is a confidentiality order (R.262A) issued by the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025) concerning EP2279254, owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The order, based on an agreement reached between the parties, establishes a confidentiality regime and confidentiality club to protect certain information Moderna wishes to submit regarding the composition and manufacturing process of its Spikevax® and mRESVIA® products.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC, and Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
This is a preliminary order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning an infringement action related to European Patent EP2437696. The Claimant, Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc., filed an R.263 application seeking leave to amend its case to base its claims on the B2 version of the patent instead of the B1 version originally referenced in the Statement of Claim. The court dismissed the application as devoid of purpose, holding that under Article 68 EPC, the B1 version had already been retroactively replaced by the B2 version, and admitted the revised Statement of Claim into the proceedings.