European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 27 of 84 · 2,007 total
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS v.The Walt Disney Company Limited et al.
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. and other Walt Disney entity defendants filed an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings SAS concerning EP 2080349. The Claimant did not raise new objections, and all other defendants joined the application. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., VitalAire GmbH, Dinno Santé s.a.i., Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., and Rubin Medical ApS
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS) filed a request under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information. The court granted the request, classifying information contained in the unredacted settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and Defendant 6 as confidential, and ordered Defendants 1-5 to treat such information as confidential and not use it outside the proceedings.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH and Erwin Härtwich
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Knaus Tabbert's objection (Gegenvorstellung) against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect of its appeal. The court held that an objection under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure, which merely contests the reasoning of the rejecting order, is inadmissible, as Rule 9.1 governs procedural management measures and does not permit the alteration of final procedural orders.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Milan Local Division following an interim conference in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request amendment (AR4), withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The parties were granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and legal costs.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A.
This is an interim conference order from the Milan Local Division in proceedings concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses several procedural matters including the admissibility of a new auxiliary request (AR4) amendment, withdrawn requests for evidence production and translation, and the scheduling of the oral hearing. The judge-rapporteur referred the admissibility of the AR4 amendment to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing and granted the parties a fifteen-day period to negotiate agreement on the value of the actions and costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 742 231. The parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as the application to amend the patent, to facilitate pending settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
TCL Europe SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Entities (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025)
Procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in two pending infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) concerning European Patents EP2279254 and EP4241767, both owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. The fifteen Moderna entities (Defendants) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review by the entire panel of a case management order dated 23 May 2025 concerning four preliminary objections, or alternatively seeking leave to appeal. The Court ordered that the Claimants be given one week to respond to the application.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, and Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 2 892 442 B1 in provisional measures proceedings. The respondent's requests for simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing and for permission to participate via video conference were only partially granted: the respondent was allowed to hire an interpreter at its own cost, but the costs were not to be treated as procedural costs, and the blanket request for video conference participation was rejected.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Ex Parte
Order
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court found that SSAB Europe Oy and SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH infringed EP 2 839 083 B9, owned by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, by manufacturing and selling pile tips (GS115, GS140, GS170). The court rejected the defendants' arguments that their products lacked a free-standing web, a flat support surface, or actual contact between the pile end and support surface, holding that the support surface only needs to be suitable for supporting the pile end. The court also upheld the validity of the patent in amended form and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, information obligations, publication rights, and damages.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
NUC Electronics Co., Ltd v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
Unified Patent Court decision.
CeraCon GmbH v.Sunstar Engineering Inc. (Counterclaim for Revocation – Application to Amend)
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent EP 2 479 680, relating to a method for presenting a rate-adaptive data stream. DISH Technologies and Sling TV (part of a telecommunications/satellite TV group) sued several entities of the Aylo adult entertainment group for alleged literal and equivalent indirect infringement based on the 'Auto' playback quality function in their streaming services. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent expired by lapse of time during the proceedings, and the court addressed issues of equivalence, the removal of dependent claims, and the appropriate number of auxiliary requests.
Fingon LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S.
This case concerns a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 839 403 before the Mannheim Local Division. The Defendants objected to the Claimant's reply, arguing it introduced new Trusted Applications and Samsung Galaxy S25 models without seeking leave to amend the case under R. 263 RoP. The Court held that the reply did not constitute an amendment of the case as it merely provided further illustrative examples of the attacked embodiment, and dismissed the Defendants' requests while postponing the decision on exclusion of impugned submissions until after the oral hearing.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
Insulet Corporation filed an application for confidentiality under Rule 262A RoP regarding attorney's fees and expenses incurred in proceedings for a preliminary injunction against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the application, holding that invoices from Insulet's law firm could be protected as confidential but the internal breakdown of costs and billable hours could not, and that the confidentiality club must include at least one natural person from each party.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Ex Parte
Unified Patent Court decision.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This procedural order concerns Insulet Corporation's application under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality over attorney fees and expenses incurred in proceedings against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. relating to a preliminary injunction concerning European Patent EP4201327. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Central Division) partially granted the confidentiality request, holding that while litigation costs are not inherently confidential, invoices showing a patent owner's interest in defending its patent can be protected. The Court rejected Insulet's attempt to exclude EOFLOW's natural person from the confidentiality club, ordering that the unredacted exhibits be accessible to EOFLOW's legal representatives and its CEO Jesse Kim.