European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 24 of 92 · 2,185 total
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
Infringement Action
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy a.o.
This order concerns a preliminary injunction (provisional measures) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) in relation to European Patent EP 3 295 663. The preliminary injunction application had become devoid of purpose after the Court of Appeal set aside the Helsinki Local Division's earlier decision dismissing the infringement action and PI for lack of jurisdiction, and AIM Sport indicated it no longer wished to pursue the PI application. The Court disposed of the provisional measures application based on Rule 360 RoP (no longer need to adjudicate) and addressed the parties' requests regarding costs.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.
In infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, the defendants alleged public prior use based on two 2008 projects (Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands) in which plugs allegedly embodying all features of the patent were supplied by IHC Handling Systems (later merged into IQIP B.V., a subsidiary of the claimant). The defendants filed a request under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure to order IQIP Holding B.V. and IQIP B.V. to produce extensive technical documentation regarding the prior plugs and assemblies. The Court partially awarded the request, finding it too broad and therefore limiting the scope of the production order.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Infringement Action
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
Generic Order
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG a.o.
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Counterclaim for revocation
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA COFFEE SYSTEMS GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762, in which CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG sues ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Thom as rapporteur, sets out directions for the further conduct of the case, including requirements for uniform patent interpretation, the presentation of validity attacks (particularly on inventive step), the proper formatting of auxiliary requests, and a timetable for revised submissions and responses. The court found the defendant's inventive step attacks insufficient and advised focusing on the strongest attacks, while also setting deadlines running from May 15, 2026 through June 19, 2026.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH, FAKRO Dachfenster GmbH, FAKRO Danmark A/S, FAKRO Sp. z o.o. v.Dolle A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerning the suspension of appeal proceedings under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure. Both parties jointly requested suspension of the appeal proceedings regarding an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation due to an out-of-court settlement. The Court of Appeal granted the joint request and ordered the suspension of both appeal proceedings to prevent the deadline for filing the appeal brief from expiring before decisions on the withdrawal applications are made.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., v.Zapp AG a.o.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent No. 3 805 415. The plaintiff Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. raised an objection of delay under Rule 9.2 of the Rules of Procedure, combined with a precautionary application for permission to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP. The plaintiff argued that the defendants Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH had introduced entirely new and extensive factual submissions in their reply (Duplik) to the amendment request in the nullity proceedings dated April 13, 2026, particularly regarding the main request for nullity rather than the auxiliary requests.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Infringement Action
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
Application For Costs
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
Infringement Action
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Appeal RoP220.1
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG u.a.
Application for provisional measures
ESKO-SOFTWARE BV, ESKO-GRAPHICS BV v.IN(K)CONTROL BV
Infringement Action
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Infringement Action
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., LTD and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o.
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division (decision issued on 2026-04-27) under reference UPC_BD0C7D705A, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) appeared in dispute with Hisense Gorenje Germay GmbH a.o. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.