European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 32 of 67 · 1,592 total
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request for protection of trade secrets between CUP&CINO and ALPINA Coffee Systems. The court successfully classified specific financial data submitted by the respondent as confidential business information under Article 58 EPC. This ruling is significant for practitioners as it reinforces the UPC's commitment to protecting sensitive commercial data during litigation, ensuring that proprietary information remains restricted to authorized parties.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a motion concerning the confidentiality of sensitive sales and profit data submitted by Nintendo. The Court ruled on balancing the fundamental right to be heard against the protection of trade secrets, ultimately upholding the general principle of confidentiality while granting limited access to specific Claimant personnel. This case reinforces the strict obligations parties have regarding handling confidential information, especially when it originates from third-party sources.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Benelux BV
In this procedural order, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed the complex interplay between an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. Following the parties' agreement and considering efficiency, the court opted to refer the revocation counterclaim to the Milan Central Division while allowing the infringement proceedings to continue locally. The panel also determined that a stay of the infringement case was not warranted at this preliminary stage, setting the path for parallel litigation tracks.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
In a procedural ruling concerning cost assessment within an ongoing UPC action, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the claimant, Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, protection for its trade secrets. The court found that information regarding billed work and hourly rates constituted confidential business information. This decision reinforces the ability of parties to safeguard sensitive commercial data during litigation under the UPC framework.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants/counterclaimants) to withdraw its revocation action against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA concerning EP4183412. This decision was reached following mutual agreement between both parties. The Court also ordered the reimbursement of 60% of court fees paid by the withdrawing parties. This case highlights how procedural agreements and party consent can lead to the swift closure of complex patent litigation.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a costs determination application following an infringement and revocation proceedings involving Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH and Mammut Sports Group. The court analyzed the reasonableness of the respondent's cost claims, specifically scrutinizing how they calculated the relevant claim value for fee assessment. Ultimately, the court partially granted the claimant's request, limiting the recoverable costs to 4,866.11 EUR due to methodological errors in the respondents' calculation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In this procedural order, the Unified Patent Court allowed Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA to withdraw a revocation action concerning EP4183412. The case involved complex cross-referencing between an infringement proceeding in Düsseldorf and the revocation action in Milan. Since both parties agreed on the withdrawal and subsequent closure of the proceedings, the court granted the request while also ordering the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the withdrawing parties.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH v.TP-LINK CORPORATION PTE.LTD.
Atlas Global Techonologies GmbH initiated infringement and revocation proceedings against TP-Link entities concerning EP 3 186 937. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber issued an order suspending the entire case based on a mutual agreement reached by all parties involved in the litigation. This suspension is a common procedural mechanism used to allow parties time for negotiation or settlement outside of court, effectively pausing the legal battle.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH
In a significant procedural development concerning solar panel technology, the UPC Local Division Munich granted an extension to multiple defendants. The case involves Chinese claimants asserting infringement against several LONGi-related entities regarding European patent EP 4 372 829. This order allows all parties sufficient time to prepare their defenses and counterclaims for revocation, keeping the core dispute alive.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning the revocation of EP4183412, Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA mutually agreed to withdraw the action and counterclaim. The UPC Central Division granted this request, effectively closing the proceedings. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift dismissal of complex patent litigation, even when significant value is at stake.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG; Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This UPC decision addresses a complex costs determination application arising from an infringement and revocation action concerning avalanche search devices. The court provided crucial guidance on the separability of costs, confirming that expenses incurred during preliminary injunction proceedings are distinct and separately reimbursable, even if they precede the main infringement suit. This ruling clarifies how cost ceilings apply across different procedural stages within the UPC framework, offering significant clarity for practitioners managing multi-stage litigation.
Pfizer Inc. v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
In a procedural order concerning EP4183412, the UPC Central Division allowed Pfizer (the claimants) and GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (the defendant) to withdraw their respective revocation action and counterclaim. The parties reached an agreement that rendered the patent amendment applications moot. This case highlights how mutual consent can lead to the swift closure of complex litigation in the UPC, even when significant value is at stake.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal filed by Nokia Technologies Oy against a preliminary procedural order issued in the main infringement case involving Amazon. The core issue was whether the appeal remained viable after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and subsequently withdrew the original patent infringement claim. The court determined that because the underlying dispute had been resolved, the appeal itself became moot. This ruling reinforces the principle of procedural efficiency within the UPC system, confirming that appeals must be dismissed when the subject matter they address is no longer legally relevant.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addressed a procedural request by Scandit AG seeking reimbursement of court fees after withdrawing its action against Hand Held Products, Inc. The core issue was determining the precise moment the 'oral proceedings' concluded under the relevant Rules of Procedure. The Court clarified that for appeal proceedings, the oral phase ends upon the conclusion of the hearing itself, not when the final judgment is rendered. The court consequently denied Scandit's request for a 20% refund, as the withdrawal was deemed to have occurred after the formal end of the oral proceedings. This ruling provides important clarity on procedural deadlines and definitions within the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Meril's application for suspensive effect against a preliminary infringement judgment issued by the Munich Local Division. Edwards, the patent holder, had secured an injunction prohibiting the sale and use of specific prosthetic heart valve systems. Meril argued that the initial decision was erroneous and requested a stay of enforcement. The Court ultimately rejected this request, affirming the principle that UPC decisions are generally enforceable while appeals are pending.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This UPC decision addressed a third party's request for access to the file in an ongoing infringement and revocation case concerning printer cartridge patents (EP2089230 and EP1737669). LIFE 365 S.R.L. sought full disclosure, arguing that the technical arguments from the UPC proceedings were relevant to its parallel litigation in Italy. The court ultimately granted limited access to key pleadings but denied broader access, emphasizing that only documents directly necessary for the Italian dispute would be shared.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This UPC case involves a revocation action brought by Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. against Häfele SE & Co. KG concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The claimant argues the patent lacks novelty, inventive step, and clarity. While the substantive merits are still pending before the oral hearing on June 4, 2025, the court issued a critical case management order. Notably, the judge-rapporteur rejected the defendant's extensive proposal of 80 auxiliary claims as unreasonable in number, streamlining the path forward for the litigation.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P (Demandeur) and LAMA France (Défendeur)
This UPC procedural decision addressed a third party's request for access to the case file (UPC_CFI_358/2023). LIFE 365, an Italian company involved in the printer cartridge market, sought full access to documents related to the infringement and revocation proceedings between HPDC and LAMA France. The court balanced the applicant's legitimate interest—driven by ongoing national litigation and high costs—against the need to protect confidentiality and maintain procedural integrity. Ultimately, limited access was granted, restricting disclosure only to specific pleadings relevant to the patent validity challenge.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna (various entities)
In a complex case involving fifteen Moderna entities across multiple jurisdictions, the UPC addressed procedural challenges related to service and scheduling deadlines. Claimants Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma sought extensions due to the global nature of their defendants. The Court rejected the specific extension requests but issued an order setting a unified deadline for all Defendants to file their Statements of Defense, demonstrating how the UPC manages multi-jurisdictional litigation efficiently.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-Link Deutschland GmbH
In a procedural development concerning the patent EP 3 353 901, Atlas Global Technologies GmbH initiated proceedings against TP-Link entities. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order suspending the case. This suspension was reached by mutual agreement of all parties involved in the infringement and revocation actions. This highlights how strategic agreements can pause high-stakes UPC litigation.
Genevant Sciences GmbH v.Moderna (various entities)
This UPC decision addresses procedural challenges arising from the complex, multinational structure of a corporate group (Moderna). Claimants sought extensions for defendants due to varying service dates across multiple jurisdictions. The Court rejected the blanket extension requests but imposed a single, unified deadline for filing Statements of Defense. This ruling highlights how the UPC manages procedural complexity when dealing with global entities, prioritizing judicial efficiency while ensuring all parties have adequate time.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V., Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect concerning a cost order issued by the CFI in provisional measures proceedings. Barco N.V., the appellant, sought to suspend the enforcement of a €112,000 cost award against it. The Court ultimately rejected this request, upholding the principle that appeals generally lack suspensive effect unless exceptional circumstances are met. This case reinforces the strict application of procedural rules regarding the suspension of judicial decisions within the UPC framework.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC initiated an infringement action against BioNTech and Pfizer regarding various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants, citing EP 2 401 365. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts that occurred before the UPCA came into force (specifically concerning the BA.1 variant). The Court ruled that while its competence is not retroactive, it defers the resolution of this jurisdictional challenge to the main proceedings, allowing the infringement action to proceed for now.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA; Vantiva Technologies SAS; Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
In a procedural ruling issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, the infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 353 901 were suspended. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH (Claimant) and Vantiva entities (Respondents) mutually agreed to this suspension. This decision highlights the parties' ability to manage complex UPC litigation through procedural agreements.