European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 23 of 67 · 1,592 total
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This Mannheim Local Division decision clarifies complex jurisdictional issues surrounding European bundle patents validated in the UK. The court affirmed the UPC's jurisdiction over the infringement of the UK national part, allowing defendants to raise invalidity defenses within the UPC proceedings without needing a separate national revocation action. While finding infringement and ordering product recall/destruction, the ruling emphasizes that declaratory relief obtained before the UPC is not binding on UK national authorities.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
Sanofi SA and associated entities (including Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, etc.) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France, etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466, involving Sanofi as the claimant and various generic manufacturers (Accord Healthcare, Zentiva, etc.) as defendants. The court confirmed key dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing in October 2025. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by the parties regarding the review of EPO decisions and the standardization of legal briefs across different defendant groups.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a procedural request by Kodak defendants seeking enhanced confidentiality protections for information disclosed during enforcement proceedings following an earlier infringement judgment. The court rejected these requests, emphasizing that such confidentiality issues should have been raised and addressed within the original merits proceedings. The ruling reinforces the principle that existing judicial limitations on information use are often sufficient, preventing parties from using tactical procedural applications to secure retroactive secrecy.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order in a major pharmaceutical patent dispute between Sanofi and various generic competitors (Accord, STADA, Reddy, Zentiva) sets the stage for the final stages of litigation. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the oral hearing, focusing heavily on complex issues like obviousness related to clinical trial data. Furthermore, the judge addressed procedural concerns raised by defendants regarding the drafting style of claimant's briefs.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case concerning provisional measures regarding EP 4 001 835, the court denied a request by PMT Technologies to postpone the oral hearing. The ruling emphasized the inherent urgency of interim relief proceedings, stating that scheduling conflicts, such as vacation, do not automatically justify postponement. However, the court provided flexibility by allowing for participation via video conference.
Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP, Sanofi-Aventis France) v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB; STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS; Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl; Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.
This procedural order sets the stage for a complex pharmaceutical patent infringement case involving Sanofi against multiple defendants, including Accord Healthcare and STADA. The court confirmed the dates for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, indicating that the case is moving toward substantive arguments. A key focus remains on assessing obviousness, requiring parties to prepare expert testimony regarding industry knowledge at the priority date.
Sanofi SA (and related Sanofi entities) v.STADA Nordic ApS, STADA Arzneimittel AG, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., etc.
This procedural order addresses multiple infringement actions involving Sanofi and various defendants, including STADA and Accord Healthcare. The court confirmed the schedule for the final interim conference and the subsequent oral hearing, which will focus heavily on complex issues of obviousness related to clinical trial data (Phase III TROPIC study). Practitioners should note the court's proactive approach in managing expert evidence and procedural fairness across multiple related proceedings.
Husqvarna AB v.POSITEC Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling, the UPC Court of First Instance granted POSITEC Germany GmbH's request to change the language of its infringement case from German to English. The court balanced the arguments, ultimately prioritizing the defendant's position regarding fairness and operational needs over the claimant's preference for the patent grant language. This decision reinforces the importance of considering the practical disadvantages faced by parties when determining procedural language in UPC proceedings.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH
This UPC decision addressed a request for panel review concerning an intended enforcement warning related to EP 3 511 174. Fujifilm Corporation sought to impose daily penalties on the Kodak defendants for non-compliance with previous court orders (destruction, recall, removal from commerce). The Panel ultimately rejected this review request, affirming that the original decision was legally sound. This ruling reinforces the procedural boundaries of UPC panel reviews, clarifying that detailed penalty setting must occur in a subsequent application rather than being altered during a review of the main judgment.
KINEXON SPORTS & MEDIA GMBH v.BALLINNO B.V.
This procedural order addressed a dispute over the confidentiality of financial details within an application for a cost decision. The Claimant sought to protect specific costs information, arguing it constituted a business secret revealing strategic resource allocation. While the court denied the broad request for confidential protection under R. 262A RoP, it granted a narrower measure preventing the Defendant from disclosing the subject matter of the cost decision to third parties. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting party interests and maintaining public oversight in UPC proceedings.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH
In a procedural matter, the UPC granted an extension of time periods in a complex infringement and revocation case involving Fingon LLC and Samsung Electronics. The Defendants successfully argued that they required additional time to analyze new technical arguments introduced by the Claimant, particularly those stemming from third-party software developers. This decision underscores the Court's willingness to grant extensions when parties demonstrate genuine need for further expert or external input, provided it does not unduly delay the proceedings.
TIRU SAS v.MAGUIN SAS
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal challenging an initial ex parte order for evidence preservation concerning a waste incineration patent (EP 3 178 578). The court provided important guidance on the scope of judicial review during evidence gathering, emphasizing that judges ordering evidence do not need to assess patent validity or require disclosure of all known prior art. Ultimately, the appeal by MAGUIN was rejected as they failed to meet the burden of proving why their specific prior art should have been disclosed.
TIRU SAS v.VALINEA ENERGIE SASU
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an appeal concerning the scope and necessity of evidence preservation measures ordered against a defendant (VALINEA). The court provided important guidance on the distinction between provisional measures and evidence preservation requests, confirming that validity assessment is not required at the latter stage. Crucially, it ruled that mere knowledge of potential prior art does not automatically obligate disclosure during the initial request phase, setting clear boundaries for procedural conduct in UPC litigation.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A., bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order addresses the critical issue of protecting trade secrets within a high-stakes UPC infringement and revocation action between QIAGEN Sciences, LLC and bioMérieux S.A. The Court meticulously balanced the need for transparency with the imperative to protect sensitive commercial information, particularly regarding peptide sequences and analytical results. By granting specific confidentiality classifications and access restrictions, the ruling sets a strong precedent for managing proprietary data in complex biotech litigation before the UPC.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc.
The UPC Local Division in Munich issued a procedural order setting a date for an interim hearing focused specifically on FRAND issues in the ongoing infringement case involving Lenovo and ASUS. This hearing is confidential and will be conducted in English, allowing parties to discuss sensitive licensing terms outside of public scrutiny. The decision highlights the court's ability to manage complex technical and contractual disputes within the UPC framework.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a complex infringement case involving Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. and two Kingtyre entities regarding patent EP2519412. A settlement was reached between Pirelli and one defendant, Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH, leading the Court to confirm this agreement under Rule 365 RoP. Crucially, the Court allowed the litigation to continue against the second defendant, Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd., while also granting a partial reimbursement of court fees for the claimant.
BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This UPC Order addressed a request for protection of confidential information filed by the BioNTech group against Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute in an infringement action. The Court found that the requested confidentiality protections were redundant because the relevant documents and information were already covered by a pre-existing Confidentiality Order from March 2025. This decision reinforces the principle that existing protective measures within the UPC framework remain valid even if new applications are filed.
Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for re-establishment of rights filed by Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber co. Ltd., following an initial seizure order issued by Pirelli Tyre s.p.a. The core dispute centered on whether procedural notification failures constituted a cause outside the respondent's control, thereby allowing them to reset missed deadlines. The Court ultimately rejected the application, holding that the refusal of the recipient to accept the documents fulfilled the legal requirements for service under Italian law. This ruling reinforces the strict adherence required to UPC procedural timelines.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This UPC Central Division order addresses a revocation action brought by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH concerning EP 4 019 790. The court established the procedural framework, setting the value in dispute and confirming the schedule for the oral hearing. While no substantive ruling was made, this order confirms the parties' readiness to proceed with the revocation proceedings.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case involves Microsoft Corporation versus Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy within the UPC framework. However, the provided snippet is merely a signature page and lacks any substantive details regarding the legal dispute or decision. Therefore, no meaningful analysis of the case's significance can be made at this time.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided text is merely a header and signature block from a UPC case involving Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy versus Microsoft Corporation. No substantive legal findings or outcomes are present in this excerpt. Further documentation would be required to provide an analysis of the dispute's significance for patent practitioners.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
In this procedural order, Centripetal Limited sought a preservation of evidence (Saisie) against Palo Alto Networks, Inc., alleging highly probable infringement of EP 3 821 580 related to network security solutions. The applicant requested extensive measures, including real-time monitoring and seizure of digital data at the defendant's premises. Despite the case being referred back by the Court of Appeal (CoA), the Local Division in Mannheim ultimately rejected the application for interim measures.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its surgical instrument patent (EP 2 892 442 B1). While the core request for injunctions was dismissed, the court issued significant procedural rulings. These rulings clarify how courts handle parties who fail to attend oral hearings and set a high bar for what constitutes a 'substantially contested' allegation of infringement in UPC proceedings.