European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 21 of 84 · 2,007 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in cost proceedings related to EP 2 697 391 B1. The court granted the application to classify certain cost information as confidential and established a confidentiality club, granting access to the Defendant's legal representatives, the COO, and the CEO Dr Stephen Fodor, but denying access to a patent agent/consultant due to insufficient justification.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The court dismissed the Claimant's (Centripetal Limited) request under Rule 36 RoP for a further written pleading, holding that the front-loaded procedure under the Rules of Procedure does not permit the introduction of new infringement readings at this stage of the proceedings.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 263 098 B1 in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The court identified ambiguities in the Claimant's submissions regarding the ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning the validity of three alleged patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The Claimant was ordered to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants given until 3 September 2025 to respond.
STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH v.SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH (Confidentiality Order)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 1, 2025, concerning requests for confidentiality and access/use restrictions in an appeal arising from a patent infringement action. The court partially granted the confidentiality requests of STRABAG and its intervener Chainzone, classifying certain information and annexes as confidential trade secrets under Art. 58 EPCA, while rejecting certain requests as inadmissible because they were first raised in the appeal proceedings regarding evidence already submitted in first instance.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action by Huawei Technologies against MediaTek regarding European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense (Non-Technical Part), relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the parties on 11.07.2025. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential, restricting public access, and limiting access on Huawei's side to specifically named attorneys and a limited number of natural persons, with potential fines of up to €250,000 for violations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action over European Patent EP 4 142 215. MediaTek Germany GmbH filed an application under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure seeking confidentiality protection for trade secrets contained in its Statement of Defense. The court granted the application in part, ordering that certain information be treated as confidential and restricting access on Huawei's side to specifically named lawyers, their support staff, and a limited number of named natural persons.
N.J Diffusion SARL v.Gisela Mayer GmbH
N.J Diffusion SARL, a French company and holder of European patent EP 2 404 516 relating to wigs and hairpieces, brought an infringement action against German competitor Gisela Mayer GmbH before the Local Division of Paris. N.J Diffusion alleged both literal and equivalent infringement of claims 1-4 and 7-9 of the patent, seeking 300,000 euros in provisional damages. The court rejected all of N.J Diffusion's infringement claims, finding no literal or equivalent infringement, and ordered N.J Diffusion to bear all costs, with Gisela Mayer's cost claim fixed at 50,000 euros to be added to N.J Diffusion's insolvency estate following its judicial reorganization.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd brought a patent infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 4 142 215 before the Local Chamber Munich. MediaTek Germany filed an application under Rule 190 RoP for the submission of license agreements and a related application under Rule 262A RoP seeking confidentiality protection, relying on an out-of-court confidentiality agreement concluded between the MediaTek group and Huawei on 11 July 2025. The court granted the confidentiality application in part, classifying certain information as confidential, imposing confidentiality obligations on all participants, and restricting access on Huawei's side to specified lawyers and seventeen named natural persons.
A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Sinocare Inc.
This order concerns two consolidated provisional measures proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in which Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought interim relief against Menarini and Sinocare regarding the GlucoMen iCan CGM system, alleging infringement of European patents EP3988471 and EP4344633. Menarini filed Rule 9 applications seeking postponement of the oral hearing scheduled for 3 September 2025, arguing insufficient time for a fair trial. The court dismissed the applications as unfounded, finding no special circumstances warranting postponement, and confirmed the oral hearing date while setting deadlines for the filing of Objections.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Unified Patent Court decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, Apple Retail France EURL
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1, issued in combined infringement and revocation proceedings. The court identified significant ambiguities in the Claimant's presentation regarding the chain of title and ownership of the patent in suit, particularly concerning three patent assignments and the authorization of signatories. The court ordered the Claimant to provide clarifications and supporting documents by 20 August 2025, with Defendants to respond by 3 September 2025.
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 EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing an application under R. 262A RoP for the protection of confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying certain technical details of the challenged embodiment as confidential, and restricted access to the unredacted versions of the parties' submissions to the Claimant's legal representatives and their internal assistants. The Claimant was also given an opportunity to supplement its submissions regarding the role of a natural person (Mr. [...]) for whom access to the confidential information was requested.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Powermat Technologies, Ltd. v.Anker Innovations Technology Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 481 141 in an infringement action brought by Powermat Technologies, Ltd. against multiple Anker entities and Fantasia Trading LLC. The defendants filed a conditional request to stay the infringement proceedings pending the resolution of their FRAND counterclaim before the Munich Local Division. The court postponed its decision on the stay request until after the oral hearing on the merits.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
Headwater Research LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung entities before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947, titled 'Verifiable device assisted service policy implementation,' alleging that Samsung's mobile devices running Android 7 or higher infringed claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and/or 35. Samsung contested infringement and filed a counterclaim for revocation, also seeking to challenge the patent's validity on grounds including added subject matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held an oral hearing on 20 May 2025 and announced its decision on 1 August 2025, with the outcome indicating the patent was not found valid as granted or as amended.
Novartis AG v.Zentiva K.S. and Zentiva Portugal, LDA
This is a decision on costs before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerning Novartis AG's claim for legal cost compensation following the dismissal of Zentiva's application to intervene in related proceedings. Novartis claimed €38,000 in costs but failed to adequately substantiate the proportionality and reasonableness of hiring five law firms to defend against a single intervention application. The court awarded only €3,000, the amount undisputed by Zentiva, finding that Novartis had not met its burden of proof under Rule 156.1 RoP.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG and Others
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action (UPC_CFI_487/2023) relating to European patent EP 2 645 714. The order grants an extension of the deadline for both parties to submit comments on a Rule 262.1(b) RoP request, extending it from 30 July 2025 to 12 August 2025 due to the absence of the Claimant's representatives. The order also addresses confidentiality protections for written submissions and exhibits.
TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH v.Sioen NV
This is an infringement action before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 186 428 B2, titled 'Tissue design for protective clothing,' which relates to a fabric structure for protective clothing for emergency forces. TEXPORT Handelsgesellschaft mbH, an Austrian manufacturer of firefighting clothing and exclusive licensee of the patent, alleged that Sioen NV, a Belgian company, infringed the patent in Latvia through its '868 – Twin/AS' product and in Portugal through its 'NOMEX SIOEN modelo RSB LX' product. The Court found infringement and granted TEXPORT's claims for a declaration of infringement, injunction, damages, information, recall, destruction, and legal costs, while dismissing all other requests.
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA v.Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG
Toyota Motor Europe NV/SA filed a revocation action against Neo Wireless GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 876 490 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. After the interim conference and the suspension of the oral hearing, the proceedings were stayed, and Toyota subsequently applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court granted the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered reimbursement of 20% of the court fees (EUR 4,000) to Toyota, finding that the withdrawal occurred before the closure of the oral procedure under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP.
Renault SAS (Application for Access to Court File under Rule 262.1(b) RoP) v.Ex Parte
Renault SAS applied for access to the court file and register of proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 B1, in which Avago Technologies had sued Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE for infringement and which had been terminated. The court granted Renault access to the specified pleadings and evidence in redacted form, balancing Renault's interest as a member of the public against the parties' confidentiality interests, but excluded court decisions and orders from the scope of access.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order threatening the respondent with coercive fines of up to EUR 30,000 per day for non-compliance with a prior information disclosure order. The applicant, Aesculap AG, had obtained an order on July 10, 2025 against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, and subsequently notified its intention to enforce the order in full, requesting the respondent to provide information within one month.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics France S.A.S., Samsung Electronics GmbH
Headwater Research LLC brought an infringement action against four Samsung entities concerning European Patent EP 3 110 069 B1, which relates to wireless end-user devices controlling application network access based on background/foreground states. Samsung counterclaimed for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division revoked the patent to the extent of claim 1 due to added matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application as filed, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Headwater to bear the costs.
N.V. Nutricia v.Nestlé Health Science (Deutschland) GmbH
This case before the Local Division Düsseldorf concerned European Patent EP 2 359 858 B1, which was finally revoked during the proceedings. The Claimant (N.V. Nutricia) sought closure of both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, while the parties disputed the value of the dispute. The Court set the value of the infringement action at €250,000 and the counterclaim for revocation at €500,000, ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of both proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant.