European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 3 of 92 · 2,185 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH and others
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants and applied to withdraw the action with consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declined to issue a cost decision, set the value in dispute, and reduced the standard reimbursement rate of court fees from 50% to 40% based on exceptional circumstances.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 397 009 against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with the Verifone defendants that also covered claims against Adyen, and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all defendants. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and set the reimbursement rate of court fees at 40% rather than the standard 50%, resulting in a reimbursement of EUR 16,440.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the UPC Local Division Brussels following an interim conference in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827. The court set the total value of the proceedings at €2.5 million (€1 million for the infringement action and €1.5 million for the counterclaim for revocation). The order also addressed procedural arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for 3 November 2026, including contingencies related to BARCO's pending appeal against a prior procedural order dated 17 August 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others
Ericsson filed patent infringement actions against multiple defendants, including Transsion and related entities, concerning European patents EP 3 672 085 B1 and EP 3 659 314 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Paris Seat). Following an out-of-court settlement between Ericsson and Transsion, the Claimant withdrew both infringement actions. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees at 35% rather than the requested 60%, citing exceptional circumstances due to the Claimant's procedural behaviour and the Court's increased workload.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Verifone GmbH & Others
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 506 479 against multiple defendants including Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with most defendants and applied to withdraw the action with the consent of all parties. The court allowed the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at EUR 3,000,000, and reduced the standard court fee reimbursement rate from 50% to 40% due to exceptional circumstances, ordering reimbursement of EUR 16,440 to the claimant.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a Procedural Order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Brussels) in proceedings concerning EP 3 732 827, relating to an infringement action (UPC_CFI_806/2025) brought by Barco NV against Yealink entities and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_185/2026) brought by Yealink. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim conference, including the valuation of the case, recoverable costs, the timeframe for the oral hearing, and contingencies arising from Barco's pending appeal of a prior procedural order concerning auxiliary request 6.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a rectification order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) concerning a decision dated 24 August 2026 in proceedings between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and HMD Global Oy regarding EP 2 609 590. The Court identified an obvious slip in item G of the operative part, which had stated the Claimant's request rather than the Court's actual decision on enforcement security. Both parties agreed to the proposed rectification, and the Defendant's additional suggestion to explicitly include 'definitive removal from the distribution channels' in the recall and destruction provision was also consented to by the Claimant.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a clarification order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, concerning European Patent EP 2 380 167. The court rectified an obvious slip in the operative part of its decision dated 24 August 2026, clarifying the provision of security required for enforcement of the orders. The Defendant suggested the clarification, and the Claimant consented to it.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH initiated infringement proceedings against multiple Moderna entities before the UPC Local Division The Hague, alleging infringement of European Patent EP4108769 concerning methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration. Moderna filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and territories, a Rule 361 application seeking dismissal of claims relating to non-UPC states, and a confidentiality application. The Court deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, dismissed the Rule 361 application, and provisionally granted the confidentiality application while inviting CureVac to respond.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et al.
This order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division in The Hague addresses an evidentiary dispute in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning EP2590626 B1. The panel revoked an earlier order by the judge-rapporteur that had rejected GSK's New ATEM reports (Cryo-TEM data with stained/dyed RNA of the accused products) as late-filed evidence. The panel found that during the oral hearing, the location of mRNA within particles and the nature of the aqueous core became central to the infringement discussion, making the previously rejected evidence material to the case.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request under Rule 361 RoP filed by Alpinestars and others seeking to declare Dainese's appeal inadmissible on the ground that court fees were paid after the expiry of the appeal deadline. The Court held that the Statement of appeal was lodged within the two-month time limit and that the bank transfer order for the court fees was given within the 14-day period following the Registry's invitation, rendering both the appeal and the payment timely. The requests for interim awards of costs were also rejected as the order was not final.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd. et al.
Ericsson filed a patent infringement action before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple defendants, including Transsion, Tecno, Infinix, and others, concerning European patent EP 4 277 422. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Ericsson reached an out-of-court settlement with Transsion and applied to withdraw the infringement action. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, declined to issue a cost order, and ordered reimbursement of 35% of the court fees (12,950 EUR) based on the exceptional circumstances of the case.
BYD Company Ltd & Others v.BMS Innovations, LLC
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns a Declaration of Non-Infringement (DNI) action filed by BYD entities against BMS Innovations, LLC, the proprietor of European Patent EP2937706. BMSI sought to have BYD's DNI action dismissed as inadmissible under Rules 61(1), 361, and 362 RoP, arguing that BYD failed to provide full particulars of the acts in question before filing. The Court rejected BMSI's requests in their entirety, finding that BYD's pre-filing letter of 18 May 2026 contained sufficient information and that the DNI action was not manifestly inadmissible or lacking foundation in law.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Shenzhen SiSensing Co., Ltd. & Others
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 3 960 072 B1 relating to compact on-body physiological monitoring devices, sought provisional measures from the UPC Milan Local Division against five related entities (Shenzhen SiSensing, SiBionics GmbH, Sibio Technology, Sibio PTE, and Shanghai International Holding) for their planned commercialization of the GS3-R continuous glucose monitoring system. The Court granted the provisional injunction, prohibiting the respondents from infringing the patent in the relevant Contracting Member States, ordered disclosure of distribution channels, imposed capped penalty payments for non-compliance, and awarded Abbott an interim cost award of 120,000 EUR.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court reviewed an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence under Rule 197.3 RoP in a patent infringement dispute concerning EP 4 285 308 B8 ('Securely Registering a Sequence of Transactions'). The applicant fiskaly GmbH sought evidence preservation against SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG. The court largely upheld the original April 27, 2026 order, finding plausible grounds for suspected infringement, and granted a supplementary auxiliary request requiring the expert to transport secured materials to the court's office if a main action is filed.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.
The defendants, four Amazon Web Services entities belonging to the same corporate group, applied for alignment of deadlines for filing their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation, since the statement of claim had been served on them on different dates. The claimant agreed to alignment but proposed 29 October 2026 as the common deadline, while the defendants requested 11 November 2026. The judge-rapporteur aligned all deadlines to run from 29 July 2026, the earliest date of service, ordering all defendants to file their statements of defence and counterclaims for revocation by 29 October 2026.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc. and American Wave Machines, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. WhiteWater had no objections to the request, while American Wave opposed it and sought protective measures.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This order concerns the release of a cost security deposit (Prozesskostensicherheit) in proceedings before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide €150,000 in cost security for the appeal proceedings. After the defendant fully paid the cost assessment amount of €38,230.10 owed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed receipt, the defendant applied for release of the security deposit, to which the plaintiff consented.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This case before the Brussels Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned the interpretation of Rule 296(3) of the Rules of Procedure regarding the effect of resuming previously stayed proceedings on procedural time limits. The parties had jointly requested a stay for amicable settlement negotiations, which ultimately failed. The court ruled that procedural periods resume from the date of the resumption order, taking into account the periods that had already elapsed prior to the stay, rather than beginning to run entirely afresh.
Amycel, LLC v.[Appellant] (UPC-CoA-935/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellant's principal request for the Court to provide simultaneous interpretation facilities (English to Polish) during an oral hearing in infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 993 350. The appellant, a natural person and the defendant in the first instance proceedings, argued that his limited command of English justified Court-arranged interpretation under Art. 51(2) UPCA. The Court held that the conditions for ordering interpretation were not met, as the appellant was duly represented by a professional representative and had not shown that his personal attendance rendered Court-arranged interpretation appropriate. The Court granted the alternative request, permitting the appellant to engage an external interpreter at his own expense under R. 109.4 RoP.
In(k)control BV v.Esko-Graphics BV and Esko Software BV
This UPC Local Division Brussels order addressed the interpretation of Rule 296.3 RoP regarding how procedural time limits resume after a stay of proceedings is lifted. The parties had jointly requested a stay for settlement negotiations, which was granted from 29 May 2026 to 1 September 2026. When negotiations failed, the defendants argued that time limits should start completely fresh, while the plaintiff argued they should resume accounting for time already elapsed. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's interpretation, holding that R. 296.3 RoP provides for a suspension (not interruption) of time limits, meaning they resume from the date the stay ends while accounting for the time already elapsed before the suspension.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned measures for the preservation of evidence and inspection under Rule 192 RoP. Essity, proprietor of European patent EP 3 289 139 relating to tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers, had obtained an ex parte order from the Hague Local Division allowing evidence preservation against WEPA, including the questioning of WEPA's personnel. The Court of Appeal partially upheld WEPA's appeal, ruling that Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant's personnel on technical details, while rejecting WEPA's prior use right defense and compensation claim.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings sued multiple Disney entities before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of European Patent EP 2 080 349, directed at the Disney+ streaming service. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, challenging novelty and inventive step. The court found the patent valid as amended in its auxiliary requests and partially infringed, granting injunctive relief, information and disclosure orders, and damages, while dismissing other aspects of the infringement action.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.