European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 3 of 79 · 1,878 total
Lepu Medical Technology (Bejing) Co., Ltd, Beijing, China v.Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by Lepu against an order of the Local Division Hamburg forfeiting penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction concerning EP 2 387 951. The Court upheld the penalty of EUR 58,800, finding that Lepu had continued to offer the attacked occlusion devices (MemoCarna ASD and VSD) via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform in contravention of the PI order, and that geo-blocking measures alone were insufficient to comply with the injunction prohibiting both offering and placing on the market.
Shinhoo Europe S.r.l. v.Grundfos Holding A/S
This is a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich section) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423. The plaintiff, Shinhoo Europe S.r.l., filed the nullity action on 3 September 2025 against Grundfos Holding A/S. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed on a cost settlement. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the defendant to pay EUR 20,000.00 to
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP application in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, a patent owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (a group of GC Aesthetics entities) sought to exclude certain sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026, while LABS requested further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (other than paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, but allowed the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings, and granted the Defendants an opportunity to file further written pleadings.
(2) NAGOR LIMITED, (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED v.Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP
This procedural order concerns a Rule 9 and Rule 36 RoP dispute in proceedings involving EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The Defendants (GC Aesthetics group entities) objected under Rule 9 RoP to sections of LABS's Rejoinder dated 30 July 2026 that addressed 'Infringement', 'Acts of Infringement', 'Jurisdiction' and 'Relief', arguing they were inadmissible. LABS countered that these sections constituted an implicit or explicit Rule 36 RoP request for further written pleadings. The Judge-Rapporteur ruled that the 'Infringement' and 'Relief' sections (except paragraphs 611-616) were inadmissible, while allowing the 'Acts of Infringement' and 'Jurisdiction' sections into the proceedings.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
This order concerns the classification of confidential information in proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Both parties jointly requested that certain information be treated as confidential under Art. 58 EPGÜ and R. 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The court granted the request, classifying information regarding attorneys' hourly rates, billing details, and time expenditure as confidential and accessible only to a restricted circle of persons.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the suspension of cost determination proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783. The applicant, bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., had previously had its ex-parte application for provisional measures rejected and was ordered to bear costs, with its appeal also dismissed. The respondents sought reimbursement of their appeal costs, but the court suspended the cost determination proceedings until the final resolution of the main infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Sibio Technology Limited, Kowloon, Hong Kong v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Alameda, United States of America, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
This is an appeal by Sibio Technology Limited against a decision of the Paris Central Division that dismissed its revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 831 283 and maintained the patent as granted. Sibio argued that the subject matter of independent claims 1 and 15 extended beyond the original application disclosure (added matter) and that all claims lacked inventive step over the cited prior art. The Court of Appeal addressed the legal principles concerning intermediate generalisation and the relevance of technical effects in assessing added matter, ultimately ruling on the validity of the patent.
1- Google LLC, 2- Google Germany GmbH v.1- BF exaQC AG, 2- ParTec AG
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The underlying infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) based on European patents EP3614263 and EP2164678. The Defendants argued that English should be used as the language of proceedings because it is the language in which the patents were granted, the working language of the Google group, and the predominant technical language in the field. The Claimants opposed the change, arguing that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are small entities compared to Google's resources, and their internal working language is German.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), 21 Torshamnsgatan, K, Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda., Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Pi v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd., Unit 1, Floor 24, Chua, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, 1 Edwards Way, 92614, Irvi v.Meril Gmbh, Bornheimer Straße 135-137 - 53119 - Bonn – DE, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., M1‐M2, Meril Park, Survey No 1
This order was issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in proceedings concerning the determination of damages for infringement of European Patent No. 3 669 828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation seeks damages and an order to lay open books against the Meril entities, which were previously found to have infringed the patent with respect to the Myval Transcatheter Heart Valve and the Myval System. The order sets procedural directions for the upcoming oral hearing, including deadlines for submissions, the value of the dispute (15 Mio. EUR), and arrangements for the videoconference hearing scheduled for 10 September 2026.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc. v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This decision by the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and related counterclaims for revocation concerning EP 3 849 157, along with the proportional reimbursement of court fees. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw all proceedings before the closure of the written procedure and did not request a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawals and ordered 50% reimbursement of court fees to the Claimant, Defendant 2), and Defendant 1) in accordance with the applicable Rules of Procedure.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Maxell, Ltd., proprietor of European patent EP 2 061 230 relating to a portable terminal, information processing apparatus and content display system, sued Samsung Electronics entities for infringement of device claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 with Galaxy smartphones and tablets. Samsung counterclaimed for full revocation, alleging lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, and added matter. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) found the patent invalid for lacking an inventive step and revoked it in its entirety, dismissing Maxell's infringement action and ordering Maxell to pay Samsung's costs.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V., Moderna Biotech Distributor UK Ltd
This order concerns proceedings involving two divisional European patents (EP4066856 and EP4226941) owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Moderna entities. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office: EP941 by the Opposition Division on June 24, 2026, and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on July 20, 2026, both for lack of novelty. The Court disposed of the counterclaim action regarding EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear Moderna's costs, and postponed its decision on whether to stay the remaining proceedings pending the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Cybex GmbH, Riedingerstraße 18, 95448 Bayreuth, vertreten du v.Respondent
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The applicant relied on a narrower claim set combining Claims 1 and 2 of the patent as granted. The court addressed two key procedural issues: whether relying on a narrower claim set precludes preliminary measures, and whether auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief should be admitted. The court ordered preliminary injunctive relief against the respondents in multiple UPC member states.
Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology, Inc., 5th Fl., 216 Hwangsaeul-ro Bundang-gu - 13595 - Seongnam-si, v.ASUSTeK Computer, Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology against several ASUS entities and Ninepoint GmbH regarding EP 3 849 157, along with two counterclaims for revocation filed by ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer GmbH. Before the closure of the written procedure, all parties mutually agreed to withdraw the infringement action and both counterclaims for revocation without requesting a cost decision. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% proportional reimbursement of court fees to each party that had paid them.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA,Rue de l’Institut 89, 1330 Ri v.the Netherlands, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium N.V., Rijksweg 12, 2870 Puurs-S
This procedural order concerns three related actions before the Hague Local Division involving GSK as claimant and a group of Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') as defendants, regarding two divisional patents EP856 and EP941. Both patents were revoked at the European Patent Office—EP941 by the opposition division on 24 June 2026 and EP856 by the Technical Board of Appeal on 20 July 2026—for lack of novelty. The court disposed of the counterclaim action concerning EP856 as devoid of purpose, ordered GSK to bear the costs, and postponed its decision on PBNT's request to stay the remaining proceedings pending the issuance of the written grounds of the TBA decision.
Niche Biomedical, Inc., (doing business as ANEUVO), 10940 Wi v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the assessment of recoverable costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant (Niche Biomedical/ANEUVO) sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% under Rule 152(2) RoP. The court held that no proper request to raise the ceiling had been made, as merely requesting reimbursement of costs exceeding the ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise it. The court set the recoverable costs at the applicable ceiling of EUR 112,000.00 and rejected the remainder of the request.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby and Vectis appealed an order from the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. They requested a stay of the proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected all requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, that neither R. 21.2 RoP nor R. 295(m) RoP justified a stay, and that no exceptional circumstances existed under Art. 74(1) UPCA and R. 223 RoP. The Court additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
Dolby International AB, Dublin, Ireland, Vectis IP Ltd., London, United Kingdom v.CPYou B.V., ´sHertogenbosch, The Netherlands, Acer Italy s.r.l., Arese, Italy
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Dolby International AB and Vectis IP Ltd. appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague that had admitted Vectis's intervention in infringement proceedings relating to European patent EP 3 079 153 and declared a counterclaim for FRAND rate-setting against Vectis admissible. The appellants sought a stay of the first-instance proceedings pending the appeal. The Court of Appeal rejected the requests for a stay, finding that the impugned order was not manifestly wrong, and additionally held that Dolby's appeal was inadmissible because the JR order did not adversely affect Dolby.
QIAGEN Sciences, LLC,, its Treasurer and CFO Roland Sackers, its Senior Vice Presid v.bioMérieux S.A.,, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH,
This case concerned European patent EP 2 726 883 before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. QIAGEN Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action against bioMérieux S.A. and bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH on 28 February 2025, and the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on 10 June 2025. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of all claims. The Court allowed the withdrawal of both the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the unconsumed court fees to both sides.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsfü v.Respondent
This case concerned a request for confirmation of a settlement between the parties in proceedings related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The proceedings originated from an inspection and evidence preservation order obtained by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026. After the expert's detailed description was disclosed and ANCA Europe raised no objections, the parties notified the court on August 3, 2026 that they had settled the dispute and requested the court to confirm the settlement under Rule 365(1)(2) RoP.
Julius Blum GmbH, (Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte GmbH & Co KG) v.Arturo Salice S.p.A., Via Provinciale Novedratese, 10, 22060 , Novedrate Como), IT
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438 relating to a furniture hinge. Julius Blum GmbH (Austria) sued Arturo Salice S.p.A. (Italy) for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. Following an interim hearing held on July 31, 2026, the presiding judge addressed procedural matters including the value in dispute, settlement possibilities, cost arrangements, expert and witness requirements, interpretation issues, and further written submissions, confirming the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.