European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 26 of 67 · 1,592 total
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
In this preliminary order, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim addressed the valuation of a complex case involving an infringement action against Samsung by ZTE, which included a FRAND counterclaim. The court ruled that basing the value solely on the patent-in-suit is insufficient for assessing the scope of a FRAND license. This decision significantly impacts the financial burden and procedural trajectory of the dispute, setting a preliminary, higher valuation for the overall proceedings.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing based on alleged fundamental procedural defects in a prior ruling. Alexion Pharmaceuticals sought to reopen proceedings concerning its patent EP 3 167 888, arguing that the court applied new standards without proper notice. The Court ultimately rejected the application, clarifying that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly fundamental flaws, not mere errors of legal reasoning or disagreement with the outcome.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft v.PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG
This UPC appellate case involved ILME appealing a rejection of its opposition against an infringement suit brought by PHOENIX regarding EP 3 602 692. However, before the appeal could be decided on merits, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the withdrawal and termination of the original infringement proceedings. The UPC Appeals Board subsequently dismissed ILME's appeal under Rule 360 because the underlying dispute had become moot.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
This procedural order in the Paris Local Division addressed Gisela Mayer's request for N.J Diffusion to provide a €50,000 guarantee due to N.J Diffusion's insolvency proceedings. The Panel ultimately dismissed this guarantee request, citing French collective procedure law which prioritizes the principle of equality among creditors. Crucially, the underlying infringement action was confirmed to continue despite the debtor's financial difficulties.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Amgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company; Amgen N.V.; Amgen GmbH; Amgen AB; Amgen S.A.S.; Amgen s.r.l.; Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda.; Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for a rehearing filed by Alexion Pharmaceuticals against Amgen, challenging an earlier ruling. The court clarified the extremely narrow scope of Art. 81(1) UPCA, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal mechanism. The court ruled that procedural errors must be 'fundamental'—so severe they are intolerable to the legal system and would have prevented the decision from being reached—and rejected Alexion’s application.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V.
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a request by The Walt Disney Company group to change the language of proceedings from German to English. The court found the application admissible and granted the request, citing fairness and consistency with previous rulings in related cases. This decision is significant as it reinforces the practical application of Article 49(5) UPCA, allowing parties to successfully petition for a language change based on the patent's grant language.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted an order to classify certain details from a settlement agreement as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of Article 58 EPC and Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure within the UPC framework. The case highlights how parties can seek judicial protection for sensitive business information during complex litigation, even when the core infringement claims are not addressed.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH v.Knaus Tabbert AG
This UPC decision addresses a procedural challenge ('Gegenvorstellung') brought by Knaus Tabbert against the Appeal Court's rejection of its request for interim relief. The court ruled that such a counter-submission is inadmissible if it only disputes the reasoning of the rejecting order, not the merits itself. This ruling reinforces strict procedural boundaries within the UPC system regarding appeals and motions for provisional measures.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v. Schnell s.p.a. case outlines the procedural path forward before the UPC Panel. The court addressed key issues, including the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) and the production of technical evidence. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate settlement on infringement value and costs ahead of the scheduled oral hearing.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l.
This interim order in the Progress Maschinen v. Schnell case addressed several key procedural issues ahead of the main oral hearing. The court deferred a decision on the admissibility of a new patent amendment (AR4) to the Panel's assessment during the upcoming hearing. Crucially, the parties were given time to negotiate an agreement on damages and costs before proceeding with the full merits discussion. This order highlights the UPC's focus on procedural efficiency while maintaining flexibility for settlement.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc.
10x Genomics sued Curio Bioscience for infringing its patent covering spatial detection of nucleic acids using array technology. After a detailed examination by the Düsseldorf Local Division, the court issued a mixed ruling. While infringement was found for certain claims (like Claim 14), the core claim (Claim 1) was not infringed. The action resulted in partial success for 10x Genomics, setting out specific financial and operational parameters for future enforcement.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH; XSYS Prepress N.V.; XSYS Italia S.r.l.
In a procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance granted a request by both parties to stay ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings related to EP 3 742 231. This decision allows Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH and XSYS entities to engage in settlement negotiations without the immediate pressure of litigation. The stay is tied to the timeline of parallel opposition appeal proceedings at the EPO, highlighting how UPC procedures can be managed alongside national/EPO actions.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. successfully obtained a provisional injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH regarding the use of its electrolytic medium in electropolishing processes (EP 4 249 647 B1). The Hamburg Local Division upheld the cease and desist order, imposing significant recurring penalty payments for non-compliance. This case highlights the practical application of provisional measures within the UPC framework, emphasizing the balance between protecting patent rights and considering market interests.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
In this costs application concerning an infringement and revocation action, the Defendants sought to compel Headwater Research LLC (the Claimant) to provide substantial security for legal costs due to its US domicile. The UPC Local Division dismissed this request, finding that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof. The court emphasized that a mere argument about enforcement difficulty is insufficient, especially when the claimant possesses significant, revenue-generating assets like a large patent portfolio.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division addressed applications concerning the revocation of EP 3 296 274. The Claimant sought to introduce new arguments and reports late in the proceedings, while the Defendant requested an extension for its Defence. After discussions with both parties, the Court agreed to admit the new pleadings and grant a two-week extension. This decision underscores the importance of party cooperation in managing procedural timelines within the UPC framework.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha initiated infringement proceedings against General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. and related entities concerning EP 3 686 683 B1, which included a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a Procedural Order confirming that both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim would be heard jointly. This decision streamlines the litigation process by ensuring a unified interpretation of the patent's scope across both validity and infringement claims.
Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna, Inc.
In a complex biotech patent dispute involving Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and numerous Moderna entities, the UPC issued a procedural order in June 2025. The defendants sought to challenge prior case management orders and preliminary objections raised by the claimants across two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025). The court granted the claimants a week to respond, indicating that the core substantive issues remain pending while procedural challenges are addressed.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC case, Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The core dispute revolved around procedural matters: specifically, whether the respondent could receive simultaneous interpretation and participate via video conference during the oral hearing. The court partially granted the request, allowing the respondent to hire an interpreter at their own expense, but rejected the formal application for state-funded interpretation and denied the video conferencing option due to insufficient justification.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
This UPC decision addressed a procedural request for access to confidential case files following the revocation of an EP patent. The Court held that once a first instance judgment is rendered, the public interest in transparency and understanding the court's reasoning generally prevails over confidentiality concerns. Although the applicant was granted access to the documents, the judge-rapporteur also allowed Juul Labs to appeal and suspended the order pending the outcome of that appeal.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This UPC procedural order addressed a request by the counterclaim claimant (CCR) to introduce new prior art into its revocation proceedings against EP 4 108 413. The CCR sought leave to amend its case based on a newly discovered document, arguing for generous application of amendment rules. However, the Court dismissed the request, reinforcing strict adherence to procedural requirements in counterclaim for revocation actions. The ruling highlights the court's priority of procedural certainty and protecting the defendant from late-stage attacks.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. v.BROCKWELL GROUP LLC, AYLO PREMIUM LTD, AYLO FREESITES LTD, BRIDGEMAZE GROUP LLC, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO BILLING US CORP.
This Mannheim Local Court decision addressed a complex UPC case involving DISH Technologies and Sling TV against several defendants regarding EP 2 479 680, which covers rate-adaptive streaming methods. The ruling provided crucial guidance on patent law principles, specifically defining the limits of 'technical-functional equivalence' in infringement analysis. It also clarified that isolated challenges to dependent claims are generally insufficient for legal protection without challenging the independent claim.
Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. v.VusionGroup SA
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural dispute concerning the timely filing and recovery of costs in patent litigation. The appellant (Hanshow) sought an extension for its cost claim related to the appeal proceedings against VusionGroup. The court strictly upheld the procedural requirements, ruling that extensions are not available for missed deadlines under R. 151 VerfO. This decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to UPC timelines and clarifies the scope of costs recovery in summary cost proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses an application for suspensive effect filed by NUC Electronics against a judgment ordering it to disclose confidential business information regarding the origin and distribution of its products. The court ruled that the disclosure obligation is necessary for effective IP enforcement under EU directives. Consequently, NUC's request to suspend the appeal was dismissed, meaning the original order compelling information disclosure remains in force.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
In this procedural order concerning an infringement action, the claimant sought to amend its damages claim to include profits derived from ancillary sales of sealing material and service contracts related to the allegedly infringing machines. The court addressed the admissibility of this clarification under R. 263 RoP, balancing the need for a front-loaded procedure against the defendant's right to defense. Ultimately, the court permitted the claimant to clarify its request without formal amendment while deferring the final decision on the scope of damages until after the oral hearing.