European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 27 of 92 · 2,185 total
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Infringement Action
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Application for provisional measures
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Unified Patent Court decision.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
Application For Costs
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Infringement Action
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
Infringement Action
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v.ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA.
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several entities of the SEB group, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201. The dispute concerns SEB's launch of the 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices, which includes an air frying mode, allegedly imitating SharkNinja's patented technology. The decision addresses the legal principle that lack of novelty may arise from implicit disclosure in prior art, where a person skilled in the art would objectively consider the result as necessarily implied.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a. o.
This decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerns European Patent No. 3 926 698 B1 and addresses the procedural interplay between cost decisions and subsequent appeal proceedings. The court clarified that under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure, a cost determination application must be filed within one month of the main proceedings decision. If a cost decision is rendered before the appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is later amended on appeal, the original cost decision loses its basis, and any amounts already reimbursed thereunder become recoverable as part of the costs in the post-appeal cost proceedings.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Orange SA against HMD Global Oy regarding European Patent EP2345029. Orange sought to have certain arguments from HMD's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late-filed, or alternatively to be permitted to file supplementary written submissions in response. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that, in the interests of fairness and adversarial proceedings, Orange should have the final say on the FRAND defence raised by HMD, and accordingly allowed Orange's proposed written response on the FRAND defence while denying HMD's subsidiary request to respond further.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al
This is an order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order records decisions taken at an interim conference held on 10 April 2026 in proceedings between Maxell (claimant/defendant in counterclaim) and multiple Samsung entities (defendants/claimants in counterclaim). The order sets the value of the infringement action at EUR 1,500,000 and the counterclaim action at EUR 2,000,000, clarifies the parties' respective requests, and addresses pending objections relating to the de-facto-FRAND defence and new invalidity attacks.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
Infringement Action
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
Application For Costs
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. et. al
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague addresses confidentiality and evidence production issues in patent infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order deals with Philips' application to reject TCL's confidentiality request and evidence production request, as well as Philips' own request to classify certain information as confidential under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The matter involves competing confidentiality regimes proposed by both parties regarding licence-related information and commercially sensitive data exchanged during the proceedings.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH a.o.
This case concerns a cost assessment proceeding related to European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The plaintiff, Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., had originally sued the defendants for patent infringement, while the second defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation. The patent was revoked for Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, and the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, with the plaintiff ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings. The defendants filed a cost assessment application seeking reimbursement of their attorney fees, travel costs, and court fees, based on a prior agreement between the parties.
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
Revocation Action
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) v.VILPE Oy (defendant)
In this legal proceeding before Munich (DE) Central Division - Section (decision issued on 2026-04-08) under reference UPC_95D854827E, WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna (claimant) appeared in dispute with VILPE Oy (defendant) concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Infringement Action
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
Infringement Action
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Application for provisional measures
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
Generic Order
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicações Lda
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V
This order concerns a procedural application by the defendants (Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. based on European patent EP 3349412. The claimant agreed to the language change but requested three weeks to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and certain annexes, while the defendants requested two weeks. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language change to English and addressed the translation timeline.