European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 84 · 2,007 total
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes filed a revocation action against Roche Diabetes Care GmbH before the Central Division Paris concerning European Patent EP 2 196 231, relating to a system for ambulatory drug infusion. The Central Division dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as granted, after which Tandem Diabetes appealed. Following the appeal, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm it, which the Court did, terminating the appellate proceedings and confirming that each party bears its own costs.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG v.Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This case concerned an infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 602 692, accompanied by a revocation counterclaim. Following an out-of-court settlement, the plaintiff withdrew the infringement claim and the defendants withdrew the revocation counterclaim. The court allowed both withdrawals, terminated the proceedings, and addressed the refund of court fees, setting the value of the infringement claim at €750,000 and the revocation counterclaim at €1,125,000.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside a portion of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division concerning the imposition of periodic penalty payments, ruling that such a decision under R. 354.4 RoP must be made by a panel rather than a single judge. The case was referred back to the Local Division for adjudication as a panel on Hybridgenerator's request that periodic penalty payments be imposed on the Respondents for alleged non-compliance with an evidence preservation order.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This procedural order concerns applications by multiple Moderna entities seeking rectification of a prior Procedural Order dated 23 May 2025 regarding Preliminary Objections filed in two infringement actions (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) involving European patents EP2279254 and EP4241767 owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corporation. Moderna argued that the dates of service on Moderna Germany, Moderna Belgium, and Moderna Poland were incorrectly stated in the prior order, which affected the admissibility of their Preliminary Objections. The court found the applications founded, holding that the dates constituted clerical mistakes rectifiable under R.353 RoP, and rectified the order to confirm that the Preliminary Objections filed on 24 April 2025 were admissible for all defendants.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This procedural order concerns a request by 10x Genomics to modify a confidentiality order issued on 11 March 2024 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1. The Applicant sought to replace two named paralegals in the confidentiality club who were no longer available, and alternatively to expand the club to include any paralegal involved in the proceedings. The Court allowed the substitution of the two unavailable paralegals with a new paralegal and a foreign language correspondent, but rejected the broader request to expand the confidentiality club.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning Meril's applications under Rule 353 RoP for rectification of the court's decision of 4 April 2025 in proceedings concerning European patent EP 3 669 828 (titled 'Prosthetic Heart Valve'). The court granted rectification of five items (1, 2, 3, 7, and 8) relating to corrections of claim references, a date error, translation errors in operative orders, and the claims asserted, but dismissed the remaining three items (4, 5, and 6) as unfounded.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation requested the Mannheim Local Division to issue a warning to the Kodak defendants that non-compliance with the information orders in the judgment of 2 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_365/2023) concerning EP 3 511 174 would result in penalties of up to EUR 30,000 per day. The court rejected the application, holding that the panel had explicitly decided in the main decision not to set a fixed time period for information provision or a penalty amount up-front, and that such matters would be addressed in a subsequent application to impose penalties.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.Yunex GmbH – Intervention of Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717. The court granted Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd's application to intervene in support of the defendant Yunex GmbH, as neither party raised objections. The court also addressed the claimant's request for Shenzhen Dianming to provide security for costs of EUR 169,000, giving the intervener 10 days to respond and to file an intervention brief.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the Defendants' request under R. 262A RoP seeking to classify information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant as confidential. The court held that R. 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings, not to information ordered to be disclosed pursuant to a decision on the merits, and that the existing restrictions on the use of the information sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
XSYS Italia S.r.l., XSYS Prepress N.V., XSYS Germany GmbH v.Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal concerning the temporal scope of the UPC's competence under Article 32(1) UPCA. The court held that the UPC has competence to hear an infringement action concerning acts that occurred both before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023 and during the period between the patent's opt-out and its subsequent withdrawal, and that this does not violate the principle of non-retroactivity of treaties under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.
This order concerns a joint request by all parties to stay proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP in an infringement and revocation action involving two European patents (EP '117 and EP '364). The Milan Local Division granted a partial stay of proceedings solely with respect to EP '117, holding that where all parties jointly request a stay, the Court has no discretion and must order it. The proceedings regarding EP '364 were allowed to continue as scheduled.
NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK v.Hurom Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim concerns a request by the Defendants (NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK) under Rule 262A RoP for confidentiality protection regarding information they were ordered to provide to the Claimant (Hurom Co., Ltd.) under a prior decision of 11 March 2025. The court dismissed the request in its entirety, holding that Rule 262A RoP applies only to information contained in the pleadings of the parties, not to information ordered to be disclosed to the opposing party, and that the existing use restrictions inherent in the information order sufficiently protected the Defendants' interests.
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 decision of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1, involving an infringement action and counterclaims for revocation. The court confirmed a settlement reached between the plaintiffs (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) and defendants 1 and 2 (Tandem Diabetes Care entities) pursuant to Rule 365(1) sentence 2 of the Rules of Procedure. The proceedings against defendants 3 to 6 were ordered to continue, and the settlement details were ordered to be kept confidential.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. v.Ascendis Pharma A/S and Ascendis Pharma Growth Disorders A/S
This is a procedural scheduling order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3 175 863. The order addresses the coordination of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation, setting key dates for the interim conference, oral hearing, and written procedure. The panel also requested the appointment of a technically qualified judge in the field of biotechnology.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.CeraCon GmbH
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 4 108 413. The court clarified that the claimant validly chose English as the language of the proceedings by filing its statement of claim in English and designating English pursuant to Art. 49(2) UPCA, since English is the language of the patent-in-suit and the claimant alleged infringement in multiple member states.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection concerning European Patent EP 3 401 335 B1, which covers pharmaceutical formulations of a HER2 antibody (Perjeta®). The applicants alleged that the defendants were preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®, potentially infringing the patent. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to conduct the evidence preservation and inspection at the defendants' premises, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the outcome.
Belkin Limited, Belkin International, Inc., Belkin GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
This is an appeal and cross-appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a coercive fine (Zwangsgeld) imposed on Belkin for non-compliance with an information order related to the infringement of Philips' European Patent EP 2 867 997. The Court of Appeal reduced the coercive fine from €46,000 to €42,000, ordered a partial refund, and adjusted the cost allocation between the parties, while rejecting the further-reaching claims of both sides.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon & Co., Organon Heist B.V., NV Organon, and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (the proprietors of EP 3 401 335 B1, relating to pharmaceutical formulations of HER2 antibodies used in Perjeta®) applied to the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court for an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection against Organon entities and Shanghai Henlius Biotech Inc., who are preparing to launch HLX11, a biosimilar of Perjeta®. The court granted both applications, appointing independent technical experts to inspect the defendants' premises and preserve evidence of alleged patent infringement, subject to conditions including a security deposit and limitations on the use of the evidence obtained.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to revoke European Patent No. EP 3 655 346 B1, owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, in its entirety for all designated UPC contracting member states. The claimant alleged lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.
Lindal Dispenser GmbH v.Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited
Lindal Dispenser GmbH filed a revocation action before the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) seeking to revoke European Patent EP 3 655 346 B1 owned by Rocep-Lusol Holdings Limited, which relates to a pressure pack dispenser for viscous materials. The claimant argued lack of industrial application, insufficiency of disclosure, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, primarily based on prior art WO 99/18010. The Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent as amended by the defendant's First Auxiliary Request, ordering costs to be borne 70% by the claimant and 30% by the defendant.