European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 22 of 84 · 2,007 total
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829, relating to solar cell technology. The order addresses several procedural matters including a correction to the address on the defendants' counterclaim for revocation, confidentiality measures for information in the statement of defence, and the decision to handle both infringement and validity in the same proceedings. The court granted the defendants' requests for confidentiality protection, amended a prior provisional order, accepted the address correction, and confirmed that both infringement and validity would be decided together.
Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH & Others
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 4 372 829. The claimants, Jinko entities, brought the action against multiple LONGi entities and other defendants. The Presiding Judge set dates for the interim conference (13 February 2026) and oral hearing (12 May 2026), while noting that proceedings against the fourth defendant would be deferred and the counterclaim would be addressed separately.
Memodo GmbH, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico, PowerDeal SRL, VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., Libra Energy B.V. v.Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
Defendants 3 and 5 to 8 in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 065 184 B1 requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP against the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the request, ordering the Claimant to provide EUR 100,000 in security within six weeks, finding that the Claimant's financial difficulties justified the security and that the defendants' share of the amount in dispute was irrelevant when determining the cost ceiling.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V.
The Mannheim Local Division dismissed an application by Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V. seeking to bar Malikie Innovations Ltd.'s infringement action concerning EP 3 716 655 in relation to Germany. Discord argued that Malikie, lacking a residence or establishment in Germany, had failed to appoint a domestic representative under Sec. 25(1) of the German Patent Act (GPA), rendering the infringement action manifestly bound to fail for Germany under Rules 361 and 362 RoP. The court held that Sec. 25(1) GPA is a German national procedural provision inapplicable to UPC proceedings, and that even if it were applicable, the alleged defect would be remediable rather than irremediable.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European patent No. 2 152 073. All parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings in respect of the infringement claim and the counterclaim for revocation. The presiding judge granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, with the stay not to be lifted before 30 September 2025, and cancelled the scheduled interim conference and oral hearing dates.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
Following a merits decision in favor of Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co. KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers concerning patent EP2145848, Oerlikon sought rectification under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure of a costs decision that had awarded €80,000.00 in reimbursable costs. Oerlikon argued that an additional €20,000.00 for the merits phase should have been added to reach a total of €100,000.00. The Court rejected the application, finding that the €80,000.00 figure was consistent throughout both the operative part and the reasoning of the costs decision, and that the contested phrase was merely a typographical error that did not affect the overall calculation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division in Lisbon of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent No. EP 2 819 131 B1. Both parties agreed on the appointment of a Technically Qualified Judge and that the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation should be heard together. The Court scheduled an interim conference for 22 January 2026 and an oral hearing for 25 March 2026.
[Claimant name redacted] v.Essetre Holding spa
A revocation action was brought before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance seeking revocation of European Patent EP 2 875 923 B1, owned by Essetre Holding spa, which relates to a machine for machining walls. The claimant alleged lack of novelty and inventive step based on prior art documents. The defendant submitted a principal request to amend the patent, which the court found admissible and compliant with the requirements of the European Patent Convention.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, and Roborock International B.V.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants requested extensions of deadlines for filing their opposition, statement of defense, and counterclaim for revocation, with the claimant's consent. The presiding judge granted the extensions, setting the opposition deadline to August 26, 2025, and the defense/counterclaim deadlines to October 27, 2025.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. v.Greenchemicals S.R.L.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.Photon Wave Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Seoul Viosys following a preliminary objection in revocation proceedings concerning EP 2661892. The Paris Central Division had previously ordered the transfer of the revocation action to the Paris Local Division and directed Photon Wave to bear 80% of Seoul Viosys' legal costs for the preliminary objection proceedings. The Court held the application admissible but only partly well-founded, setting the value of the preliminary objection proceedings at one quarter of the revocation action's value (EUR 500,000) and rejecting the expert costs claim, ultimately ordering Photon Wave to reimburse Seoul Viosys EUR 11,200.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sought penalty payments against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for allegedly failing to comply with a saisie (evidence preservation) order at Palo Alto's Munich office in connection with European Patent EP 3 281 580. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the request, holding that Palo Alto had no obligation to increase access rights for sales personnel or to set up technical systems not physically present at the premises, as the inspection order was limited to items found at the specified location.
OrthoApnea S.L. and Vivisol B BV v.[Defendant]
This is a costs procedure decision from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 331 036. The claimants sought €92,814.62 in costs following a successful infringement action, but the court awarded only €41,656.64, applying the standard ceiling of €38,000 for representation costs due to insufficient evidence and procedural deficiencies. The court addressed key issues including the timeliness of requests to increase the cost ceiling, the burden of proof for claimed costs, and the scope of recoverable representation costs.
TRUMPF Laser- und Systemtechnik SE v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 624 031 B1. The court decided, under Article 33(3)(a) EPGÜ and Rule 37.2 RoP, to jointly hear TRUMPF's infringement action and IPG Laser's counterclaim for revocation rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was made for reasons of procedural economy and to allow a unified interpretation of the patent by the same panel for both validity and infringement questions.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_28067/2025, UPC_CoA_521/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) on 27 March 2025, relying on a certificate from an Italian patent litigation course completed at Politecnico Milano. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the transitional period is not subject to extension or exception, and that the clerical error and equity arguments did not justify re-establishment of rights.
Hanshow Germany GmbH v.VusionGroup SA
Hanshow Germany GmbH filed a nullity action against EP 3 883 277 before the Central Division (Paris) of the Unified Patent Court, which it subsequently withdrew. After the Central Division ordered Hanshow to bear the court costs, Hanshow appealed that cost decision. Before the Court of Appeal, Hanshow then withdrew its appeal and requested 60% reimbursement of its procedural costs under Rule 370.9(b)(i) RoP, to which VusionGroup consented. The Court of Appeal granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the 60% reimbursement.
Cilag GmbH International, Ethicon LLC v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich on July 24, 2025, concerning European Patent No. 2 515 768. The claimants (Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC) requested permission to bring two private interpreters at their own expense to the oral hearing scheduled for August 6, 2025. The presiding judge granted permission for the interpreters to participate from the Overflow Room 220b rather than the courtroom, but otherwise rejected the application.
Applicant v.Registrar of the Unified Patent Court (Petition for Review APL_15506/2025)
The applicant sought entry on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a CEIPI diploma in 'Patent Litigation in Europe' obtained in July 2022. The Registrar rejected the application as filed out of time, and the applicant petitioned for review, arguing there was 'de facto continuity' between the unaccredited course under Rule 12 EPLC Rules and the later-accredited course under Rule 1. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the petition, holding that no such continuity exists and that the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 had expired before the application was filed.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Others
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_32076/2025, UPC_CoA_614/2025) v.Ex Parte
An applicant sought registration on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court based on a certificate from Politecnico di Milano. The Registrar rejected the application because it was filed after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules. The President of the Court of Appeal upheld the rejection, holding that the transitional period governs when the application for registration must be filed, not merely when the qualification was obtained, and that the period is not subject to extension or re-establishment of rights.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France
This decision concerns cross-appeals filed by Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. (HPDC) and LAMA France before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. After the Paris Local Division had found one patent invalid and the other infringed, both parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court of Appeal granted the mutual withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of procedural costs to each party.
Truma Gerätetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v.CAN Srl Airxcel Europe
Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 788 320 B1. Both parties withdrew their respective claims following an out-of-court settlement, and the court terminated the proceedings, ordering a 60% reimbursement of court fees to each party without a decision on representation costs.
Order of the President of the Court of Appeal concerning a petition for review of a decision by the Registrar (APL_18313/2025 UPC_CoA_347/2025) v.Ex Parte
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an applicant's petition for review of a Registrar's decision denying his application to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had completed a CEIPI course on patent litigation in 2022 but filed his registration application on 21 February 2025, after the expiry of the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules. The Court held that the one-year transitional period does not violate the principles of equality and proportionality, and that the applicant's health-related circumstances did not justify re-establishment of rights.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
Procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for further exchange of written pleadings under R. 36 RoP. The Court granted OTEC two weeks to file further written pleadings in response to new experimental evidence and arguments introduced by STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for the first time in its Statement of Response regarding an alleged embodiment of the patent EP 4 249 647.