European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 28 of 92 · 2,185 total
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 671 173. The appellant Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy sought a stay of proceedings and security for costs against Microsoft Corporation in the context of a counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal framework under Art. 69(4) UPCA and Rules 158 and 295 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying who may request security for costs and under what circumstances such requests are admissible.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) ahead of an appeal hearing. The Respondents sought French-to-English and English-to-French interpretation, arguing their representative lacked sufficient oral fluency in French. The Court rejected the request, holding that the inability of a representative to master the language of proceedings does not constitute sufficient justification, and ordered that the hearing be conducted in English.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
Simultaneous Interpretation
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO. LTD.
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation under Rule 109 RoP in connection with appeals against orders of the Paris Central Division. The respondents (Robert Bosch entities) sought simultaneous French-English interpretation for the appeal hearing, while the appellant (Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage) opposed the request. The Court rejected the interpretation request and ordered that the oral proceedings at the hearing
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
Infringement Action
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
Infringement Action
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
Infringement Action
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone the oral hearing date in proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 251 983. The defendant had previously confirmed 8 December 2026 as its preferred hearing date, and the Court had already rejected a first postponement application. The Court addressed procedural expectations regarding timely responses to scheduling proposals and the standard for granting postponements once a date has been agreed.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague concerning a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP3079153, which relates to the OPUS standard. The hearing addressed issues including the patent pool administered by Vectis, potential counterclaims for rate setting against Vectis, and the applicability of FRAND/Huawei v ZTE framework given that the patent at issue is part of the pool but not subject to a FRAND declaration. The presiding judge urged parties to continue negotiations and noted that a parallel OPUS case in the Dusseldorf Local Division expected a decision in mid-March 2026 that could serve as a benchmark.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing date in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 251 983. The Local Chamber Munich had proposed three hearing dates on February 13, 2026; the plaintiff responded within the deadline, but the defendant did not. The court set December 8, 2026 as the hearing date, which the defendant subsequently confirmed as its preferred date, before filing a second postponement request. The court rejected the request, holding that once a date is agreed upon, alternative dates are no longer reserved and postponement requires substantial grounds submitted with the request.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
Application RoP262A
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
Infringement Action
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Illumina, Inc v.Element Biosciences, Inc. Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos, LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
Infringement Action
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This is an appeal from the Local Division The Hague's order granting provisional measures in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. concerning the alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, upholding the preliminary injunction against the GlucoMen iCan product, finding that the UPC had jurisdiction, the patent was valid, and the requirements for provisional measures were met. The appellants were ordered to bear the costs and pay an interim award of €200,000.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This Order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a procedural question regarding jurisdiction over a cost decision application filed by Rematec following its successful appeal. The Court of Appeal held that it lacks jurisdiction over the cost decision application, which must instead be filed before the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The application to refer the cost decision to the CFI with a deemed filing date was dismissed.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order rejecting Rematec's request to transfer its cost assessment application to the Court of First Instance (Local Division Mannheim) with the original filing date preserved. The Court held that it lacked competence to decide on cost assessment, which must be initiated before the Court of First Instance, and that no exceptional circumstances justified a transfer. The underlying dispute concerned European Patent EP 2 548 648, where the Court of Appeal had previously reversed the first instance decision and granted Rematec's infringement claim on an auxiliary request while dismissing Europe Forestry's invalidity counterclaim.
Amazon.com, Inc. and others v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a party may prepare a private transcript of an oral hearing using a professional stenographer, based on an audio recording under Rule 115 RoP. The Court of Appeal overturned the Court of First Instance's order and held that producing a private transcript is permissible, provided it is clearly labeled as a private, non-authoritative document and used under specified conditions.
Emporia UK and Ireland Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
The Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris seat) granted a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1, a patent relating to light-emitting diodes owned by Seoul Viosys. The Court found that the independent claim contained added subject-matter extending beyond the content of the earlier application, and that none of the patent proprietor's auxiliary requests could remedy this defect. Combined with the Court of Appeal's prior revocation of claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9 in parallel proceedings, the patent was revoked in its entirety as to the challenged claims.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.