European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 24 of 84 · 2,007 total
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning four related infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters including the pending written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent as granted at an oral hearing on 2-4 June 2025), the scheduling of expert testimony via hot tubbing on obviousness issues, confidentiality arrangements regarding Sanofi's damages calculations, and the format of Sanofi's future briefs. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference (12 September 2025) and the oral hearing (14-17 October 2025).
Sanofi SA and related Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in patent infringement actions concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The order addresses pending issues including the awaited written reasoned decision from the EPO Board of Appeal (which upheld the patent at an oral hearing in June 2025), ongoing French appeal proceedings regarding invalidation of the French part of the patent, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 2025. The court confirmed dates for the final interim conference and oral hearing, and addressed procedural matters including confidentiality of interim damages calculations and the format of Sanofi's briefs.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH & Samsung Electronics France S.A.S. (EP 2 839 403)
The defendants (Samsung Electronics GmbH and Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.) requested a three-week extension of time periods for filing their rejoinder in the infringement proceedings and their reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, seeking a deadline of 11 August 2025. The claimant (Fingon LLC) opposed the request. The Mannheim Local Division granted the extension, finding that the defendants had substantiated their need for additional time to analyze new technical arguments and obtain information from a third-party developer and their private expert.
NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH v.Ex Parte
The provided text contains only a digital signature block attributed to Anja Mittermeier dated July 16, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, case facts, legal arguments, or decision details available for analysis.
Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH v.Ballinno B.V.
This procedural order concerns an application by Claimant Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH to restrict Defendant Ballinno B.V.'s access to certain information in a cost decision application filed in underlying revocation proceedings concerning EP 1 944 067 B1. The Court denied the application under R. 262A RoP, finding Claimant's arguments too general and the proposed access restriction unduly burdensome, but granted an implied request under R. 262.2 RoP, preventing Defendant and its UPC representatives from disclosing the cost-related information to third parties.
POSITEC Germany GmbH v.Husqvarna AB
POSITEC Germany GmbH, the defendant in a patent infringement action brought by Husqvarna AB before the Local Division Düsseldorf, applied to change the language of the proceedings from German to English (the language in which EP 3978304 was granted). Husqvarna opposed the application, arguing that POSITEC, as a German company operating the EMEA headquarters, should be able to handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, holding that the position of the defendant prevailed in the balancing of interests.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sought panel review of a court order rejecting its request for an enforcement warning against three Kodak entities in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 511 174. The Mannheim Local Division rejected the review request, holding that the judge-rapporteur had correctly applied the legal standards and that the claimant should have raised its concerns via an appeal against the main decision rather than through a panel review. The claimant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.
BioNTech SE and Others v.Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request by the BioNTech and Pfizer defendants for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation involving European patent EP 2 401 365. The court rejected the requests, finding that the confidential information was already protected by an existing confidentiality order dated 10 March 2025, and that the information related to license agreements between the Claimant and the patent proprietor, who were already aware of it. The decision on a request to hold oral hearings behind closed doors was deferred to the oral hearing itself.
MAGUIN SAS v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected MAGUIN SAS's appeal against an order of the Paris Local Division that had refused to revoke an ex parte order for evidence preservation and site inspection. The court upheld the principle that evidence preservation measures under Rules 192.3 and 197 RoP do not require the same urgency, certainty of evidence disappearance, or patent validity assessment as provisional measures, and that applicants need not disclose prior art unless special circumstances warrant it.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Milan) against Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH and Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. concerning European Patent EP2519412. During the proceedings, Pirelli and Kingtyre Deutschland GmbH entered into a settlement agreement, and Pirelli requested the Court to confirm the settlement, maintain confidentiality over certain financial details, and continue the action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd. The Court confirmed the settlement, ordered confidentiality of the unredacted terms, and granted Pirelli a reimbursement of 30% of the total Court Fees.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling a further interim hearing on FRAND in patent infringement proceedings. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann on July 15, 2025, sets a hearing date of July 21, 2025, to be held in person, in English, and entirely in camera due to the confidential nature of the topics to be discussed.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC v.bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application by the Defendants (bioMérieux) for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP in an infringement action regarding EP 2 726 883. The court classified certain information in the Statement of defence and Exhibits BB 6–9 as confidential, including peptide sequences, analyses, results, supplier documents, and technical specifications, while restricting access to a defined list of representatives and personnel. The Defendants' request for confidentiality protection regarding Exhibit 10 was rejected, though access to its unredacted version was delayed by one week.
VALINEA ENERGIE SASU v.TIRU SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division of Paris's order rejecting VALINEA's request for revocation of an ex parte evidence preservation and site inspection order concerning European patent EP 3 178 578. The court held that the urgency assessment for evidence preservation differs from that for provisional measures, that the risk of evidence disappearance is assessed by probability rather than certainty, and that patent validity need not be assessed at the evidence preservation stage. VALINEA's appeal was rejected.
SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD. v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Munich section) in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790. Following an interim hearing held on July 11, 2025, the presiding judge made several procedural determinations, including setting the value in dispute at EUR 500,000, reserving the admissibility decision on a specific exhibit for the oral hearing, and scheduling the oral hearing for October 16, 2025.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The provided judgment text contains only the digital signatures of the presiding judges and the date of signing (July 12, 2025), with no substantive content regarding the facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome of the case.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
The provided judgment text contains only digital signatures of the presiding judges (Peter Hendrik Blok and Emmanuel, Lucien, René Gougé) dated 12 July 2025, with no substantive content, facts, arguments, or reasoning available for analysis.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited, as registered proprietor of EP 3 281 580, applied to the Local Division Mannheim for an order to preserve evidence (Saisie) under Art. 60 UPCA, alleging that Palo Alto Networks' network security solution (Next Generation Firewall, Advanced Threat Prevention, and App-ID Cloud Engine) likely infringed claims 1 and 16 of the patent. After the judge-rapporteur initially rejected the application and the Court of Appeal referred the matter back, the court granted the application in modified form, ordering inspection, evidence preservation, and an expert report subject to a security of EUR 100,000 and various confidentiality conditions.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.Steros GPA Innovative S.L.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a preliminary injunction order issued by the Hamburg Local Division. The Court held that OTEC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, as it did not establish that the impugned order contained manifest errors or violated fundamental procedural rights.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Nera Innovations Ltd. sued several Xiaomi group entities for infringement of the German and Dutch parts of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless power receivers, based on the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G smartphones. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, to which Nera responded with 33 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The Local Chamber Hamburg partially revoked the patent, declaring it null to the extent its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 as maintained in auxiliary requests 1 and 2, while dismissing the further-reaching revocation counterclaim.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to a cutting tool for a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The defendant informed the Registry it would not be represented at the oral hearing and failed to appear, leading the Local Chamber Düsseldorf to decide on the merits as if the defendant had been present. The court granted the application in part, ordering the defendant to cease offering and distributing the infringing products, surrender them to a bailiff, provide detailed information on origin and distribution, and pay provisional costs of EUR 33,335.70.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a cost decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1. FUJIFILM Corporation had sued three Kodak entities for patent infringement in Germany and the United Kingdom, and the Kodak entities had filed counterclaims for revocation. On 28 January 2025, the court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered FUJIFILM to bear the costs. The Defendants then applied for a cost decision, which the court largely granted, awarding reimbursement of representation costs, travel expenses, and other costs, while disallowing certain expert and barrister costs as well as costs for the cost proceedings themselves.
Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and Others v.JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court allowed Chint's appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal to order security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 4 092 759. The Court held that the fact that JingAo Solar is based in China, a non-EU/EEA state, combined with documented difficulties in serving documents in China, supported a finding that enforcement of a cost decision would be unduly burdensome. The Court ordered JingAo to provide security for costs in the amount of €200,000.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.