European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 23 of 92 · 2,185 total
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
Generic Order
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele filed an application for provisional measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, alleging infringement of EP 4 676 295 B1 through Melitta's 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags. After the court indicated that the patent's validity appeared compromised by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, ordered Miele to reimburse Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (€7,300) beca
Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG v.ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON
In this legal proceeding before Brussels (BE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-05-04) under reference UPC_46FFEC8858, Simmons & Simmons LLP GENENTECH INC. F. HOFFMANN – LA ROCHE AG appeared in dispute with ORGANON HEIST B.V. NV ORGANON concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, held by Topsoe A/S, in proceedings involving inspection and preservation of evidence against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH. The applicant challenged the impartiality of an appointed expert, seeking to have the expert disqualified on grounds of bias. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf examined whether circumstances existed that would give a knowledgeable and reasonable observer justified doubts about the expert's impartiality or independence. The court ruled that the content of an expert report alone is insufficient to cast doubt on impartiality, and that a flawed report or lack of expertise does not indicate bias unless additional circumstances suggest a lack of objectivity.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 and involves an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for the revocation of an inspection and evidence preservation order previously issued ex parte by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on September 22, 2025. The original order had permitted OTEC to inspect a 'DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell' at the respondent's stand at the EMO Messe Hannover 2025 trade fair, including operating the device, attaching a smartphone to measure rotation speed, and configuring programs. The present order, issued on May 4, 2026, addresses the respondent's request to set aside that earlier inspection order under Article 60(8) of the relevant agreement and Rules 198.1 and 199.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte preservation of evidence and inspection order against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition containing at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order,
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses multiple procedural applications in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order deals with Acer's application for production of comparable licence agreements under Rule 190, requests for a confidentiality regime under Rules 262A and 262.2, the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., and Dolbys request for an extension of deadlines. The subject matter includes an infringement action, a counterclaim for revocation, and a counterclaim for rate-setting.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
Appeal RoP220.2
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Generic Order
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
Infringement Action
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, which was conducted online behind closed doors due to the confidential nature of the discussions, including matters related to the patent pool administrator Vectis. Key issues discussed included ongoing pool negotiations, a Rule 190 request by Acer, the applicability of a prior FRAND-related decision, and Acer's consideration of filing a counterclaim for rate setting against both Dolby and Vectis.
Adobe Inc., Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected as entirely inadmissible the appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated 19 December 2025, which had ordered Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 949 070. The Court held that Adobe had failed to first obtain authorization to appeal from the first instance court as required by Rule 220.
GUALA PACK S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co. LTD
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
This order concerns an application by the plaintiff for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) under the revised Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure, rejecting the plaintiff's request for 60% reimbursement.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
Application for provisional measures