European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 3 of 67 · 1,592 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural application for further written pleadings during an ongoing infringement appeal. The claimant, Hurom, sought additional time to respond to new arguments and prior art documents introduced by the respondents (NUC). The court ultimately rejected this request, prioritizing the principle of efficient conduct and the upcoming oral hearing. This ruling reinforces the strict procedural timelines within the UPC's written phase.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
Industriebeteiligungs- und Beratungs GmbH v.Washtower IP B.V.
In this UPC Court of Appeal decision, the parties agreed to settle the dispute regarding provisional measures. The court permitted the withdrawal of the appeal, contingent on Washtower covering all legal costs and compensating Bega for any damages resulting from the initial injunctions. Crucially, the court determined the value in dispute at €530,000, applying a specific calculation method derived from the Guidelines to assess recoverable costs.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
Irdeto B.V. v.SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division addresses a dispute over court fees related to counterclaims for revocation. The claimant, Irdeto B.V., initiated an infringement action against several defendants, including SZ DJI Technology Co., Ltd. The core issue was whether Defendant 1 could use the fee paid by Defendants 2-4 when submitting its own counterclaim later. The Court ruled that because Defendant 1's submission constituted a separate action/counterclaim in time, it must pay a distinct court fee.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a procedural motion filed by the respondent (Huawei) seeking to suspend an earlier order concerning document access granted by the rapporteur. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, utilizing Rule 335 VerfO to prevent the immediate fulfillment of the access request from undermining the subsequent Panel Review. This highlights the UPC's commitment to ensuring that procedural steps do not prematurely conclude a case before the full judicial review process is complete.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V., Pfizer Export B.V., Pfizer B.V., and associated entities (collectively PBNT)
This procedural order in the GSK v. Pfizer case focused on managing the complexity and volume of submissions within the UPC proceedings. The defendants requested limitations on Auxiliary Requests (ARs) and an extension for their rejoinder, citing excessive length and number of ARs from the claimant. The court acknowledged the high volume but did not limit the ARs; instead, it required GSK to provide a detailed tabular overview of its claims to improve judicial clarity. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing procedural fairness with the need for expeditious case management.
beMatrix NV. v.Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision involves a rectification of an earlier provisional measures order in the dispute between beMatrix NV. and Yaham Recience Technology Co., Ltd. The original application sought preliminary injunctions against alleged infringement of EP 3 757 442 B1, which covers display modules for temporary exhibition stands. The Court ultimately corrected a clerical error in its prior ruling, ensuring that the Defendant was properly ordered to cease and desist from infringing the patent. This highlights the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting administrative or drafting errors.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order, the UPC CFI addressed complex applications regarding claim amendments and late-filed evidence in the GSK v Moderna dispute over vaccine patents. The court granted GSK's request to amend its claims to cover new product variants (mNEXSPIKE), while simultaneously dismissing Moderna’s objections concerning the timeliness of GSK's submissions. This decision affirms the claimant's right to adapt its case and respond fully to the defendant's arguments, setting a clear procedural path for the ongoing infringement and validity proceedings.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.International N&H Denmark ApS
In a significant revocation action, UPM-Kymmene Oyj successfully challenged European patent EP 2 611 800 against International N&H Denmark ApS. The UPC Central Division ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely across all participating member states. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of subject matter scope under the UPC Agreement, particularly concerning claims that may extend beyond the original application's content.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for a rehearing filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation. Suinno argued that the prior decisions were based on fundamental procedural defects, warranting a re-opening of the infringement proceedings. The Court firmly rejected this claim, emphasizing that a rehearing is not a regular appeal but an extraordinary remedy reserved only for truly intolerable procedural flaws. The ruling reinforces the principle of legal certainty in UPC proceedings, making it clear that parties must raise all relevant objections during the initial stages and appeals, rather than attempting to circumvent finality through applications for rehearing.
Gowling WLG v.Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Zentiva Portugal, LDA.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a legal representative firm, seeking public access to documents from pending infringement proceedings (Boehringer v. Zentiva). The court established strict criteria for such requests, emphasizing that they must be highly specified and not based on relevance criteria set by the applicant. While acknowledging the general interest in transparency, the Court ultimately granted limited access only to specific redacted pleadings, balancing this against the need to protect sensitive commercial information.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
In a significant revocation action, TCL EUROPE SAS challenged the validity of EP 3 296 274, which relates to fining boroalumino silicate glasses used in flat panel displays. The UPC Central Division dismissed the revocation request, upholding the patent's validity. The court ruled that the claims were sufficiently disclosed and did not suffer from lack of novelty or inventive step, thereby reinforcing the strict requirements for challenging granted patents within the UPC framework.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division in Mannheim found IPG Laser GmbH liable for infringing TRUMPF Laser UK Limited's patent covering advanced fiber laser technology with adjustable beam profiles (YLS-AMB series). The court granted an injunction and established liability for damages dating back to December 2021. While the infringement claim was successful, the respondent's counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent was dismissed.
Gowling WLG v.Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited (jointly 'Sumi Agro')
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for public access to case files, specifically concerning the scope and specificity required when requesting documents. Gowling WLG sought access to various pleadings from an appeal proceeding (UPC_CoA_523/2024). The court partially granted the request, allowing access to specified written submissions after redaction of personal data. However, the broad and non-specific nature of the exhibit request was rejected, setting a clear procedural boundary for document disclosure in UPC proceedings.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case, Messerle GmbH sued Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. for infringement and simultaneously filed a counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 705 415 B1, which covers specialized food packaging. The court ultimately dismissed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. Beyond the substantive outcome, the decision highlighted critical procedural requirements within the UPC system, particularly concerning the timely presentation of evidence and arguments.
Messerle GmbH v.Sabert Corporation Europe S.A.
In this UPC case concerning food packaging (EP 3 705 415 B1), the court dismissed both the infringement action brought by Messerle GmbH and the counterclaim for revocation filed by Sabert Corporation Europe S.A. The decision highlighted critical procedural requirements under the UPC, stressing that parties must present their full factual case and evidence as early as possible to avoid challenges regarding timeliness. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to patent practitioners about the strict evidentiary standards required in front-loaded litigation.
Leap Tools Inc. v.Wizart Inc.
In this UPC decision, the Court of First Instance addressed a request by Wizart Inc. to impose security for legal costs on Leap Tools Inc., citing the latter's Canadian base and estimated revenue. The court ultimately rejected the motion, emphasizing that simply being non-EU or having moderate revenue is not enough to establish an undue burden of enforcement. Practitioners should note that applicants seeking security must provide detailed evidence regarding foreign law recognition and enforceability, rather than relying on general nationality arguments.
Gowling WLG v.Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France-Viatris Santé
This procedural order addressed a request by Gowling WLG, a third-party firm of UPC representatives, seeking access to the case file in an ongoing provisional measures dispute between Merz and Viatris. The Court balanced the need for transparency with the protection of confidential information. Access was granted selectively, allowing the applicant to review extracts relevant to the legal issue of 'unreasonable delay,' while ensuring personal data was anonymized.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc., Arthrex GmbH, Arthrex Distribution Hub EMEA B.V.
In a significant ruling on security for costs, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned an order requiring Syntorr LP to provide a €2 million bank guarantee against Arthrex companies. The court found that Syntorr's existing litigation insurance, which included an anti-avoidance endorsement and was issued by an EU-licensed insurer, provided adequate financial protection. This decision provides important clarity on the acceptance of alternative security mechanisms in UPC proceedings, particularly for SMEs.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG; Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
In a complex dispute involving EP 3 805 415, the UPC Local Court of Düsseldorf issued an interim procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information. The defendants sought to classify various internal reports and supplier data as trade secrets, while the claimant objected to this classification. This ruling establishes strict rules for handling sensitive documents during litigation, including access limitations, confidentiality obligations, and potential penalties for breaches.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Guardant Health against Sophia Genetics concerning a provisional measures proceeding. Guardant sought to suspend the interim award of EUR 400,000 in costs granted by the Court of First Instance (CFI). The court ultimately rejected this request, holding that the appeal lacked the necessary exceptional circumstances to override the general rule that appeals do not have suspensive effect. This case reinforces the strict procedural requirements for obtaining suspensive effect in UPC proceedings.