European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 32 of 84 · 2,007 total
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in responding to ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
This is a cost decision by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought reimbursement of its costs from Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal, resolved an inconsistency in the amount claimed, and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62.
Hand Held Products Inc. v.Scandit AG and Scandit Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) regarding European Patent EP4163816. Both parties, Hand Held Products Inc. and Scandit (AG and Inc), reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees since the written procedure was still ongoing.
ArcelorMittal v.XPENG INC and Others
ArcelorMittal filed an infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 18 October 2024 against multiple XPENG entities and European automotive dealers/distributors, based on European Patent EP3290200 concerning coated steel strips. Following a settlement reached between the parties, ArcelorMittal applied on 7 April 2025 to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (6,600 euros out of 11,000 euros paid).
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) issued a cost decision following a revocation action concerning European patent EP 2 196 231 B1. The applicant, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, sought reimbursement of costs from the respondents, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. and Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. The Court dismissed the respondents' request to stay the cost proceedings pending appeal and determined the recoverable costs at EUR 117,741.62, ordering the respondents to pay jointly and severally within three weeks.
ITCiCo Spain S.L. v.Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (BMW) filed an application for a cost decision seeking €15,731.00 in costs incurred in defending against ITCiCo Spain S.L.'s unsuccessful application to set aside a default decision revoking European patent EP 2 796 333. The Court rejected the application, holding that an application to set aside a decision by default is an internal procedural remedy that does not give rise to a separate decision on costs, and that such costs can instead be claimed within the cost decision proceedings related to the main revocation action.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute centered on the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents designated as confidential by the Defendants. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club allowing access to specific external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Juul Labs' application to stay appeal proceedings in a revocation action concerning EP 3 430 921, pending the outcome of parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Both parties had agreed to the stay, and the Boards of Appeal had accelerated their proceedings with oral proceedings planned for 20 October 2025, which the court found would result in a decision before or shortly after the possible date for an oral hearing before the Court of Appeal.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This order concerns a confidentiality dispute in patent infringement proceedings before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson filed an infringement action against ASUSTek and related entities regarding patent EP3076673, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation along with applications under rules 262A and 262.2 RoP to establish a confidentiality regime for certain documents. The court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns a patent infringement action filed by Ericsson against ASUS entities regarding patent EP3076673, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The core dispute involved the confidentiality regime to be applied to certain documents, with Ericsson requesting an 'external eyes only' regime while the defendants sought access for at least one natural person from each party. The Court rejected Ericsson's request for an 'external eyes only' regime and established a confidentiality club comprising external UPC representatives, licensing expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a dispute over the admissibility of arguments regarding auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A in patent amendment proceedings. The defendants (Xiaomi entities) sought to have certain arguments from the plaintiff's reply disregarded as untimely. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that the plaintiff's reference to earlier explanations for combined auxiliary requests was sufficient under Rule 30.1(b) RoP, and that further deepening of arguments in the reply was permissible under Rule 32.3 RoP.
Nicoventures Trading Limited – Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_5/2025, APL_289/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (UPC_CoA_237/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP 3 430 921, in which Juul Labs International Inc. was the appellant and NJOY Netherlands B.V. was the respondent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the appeal is concluded. The remainder of the request, including blanket requests for unspecified or future documents, was dismissed.
Nicoventures Trading Limited - Request for Access to Written Pleadings and Evidence (APL_322/2025) v.Ex Parte
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal between NJOY Netherlands B.V. and Juul Labs International, Inc. concerning EP 3 504 991, citing its involvement in parallel EPO opposition proceedings against the same patent. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically listed documents but dismissed the broader request for unspecified documents, imposing a condition that Nicoventures may not file the pleadings with other courts or judicial instances until the UPC appeal is closed.
Rädlinger Maschinenbau GmbH v.Henle Baumaschinentechnik GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 770 330 B1, in which the court granted the claimant's application for an extension of time limits under Rule 9(3) RoP. The claimant had received a USB stick containing key annexes (MW 3 to MW 5, MW 17, and MW 27) only on April 15, 2025, nearly two weeks after the defendant's late submission to the court registry, justifying the extension of deadlines for reply to the statement of defense and counterclaim for revocation from May 28, 2025 to June 16, 2025.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd v.Laser Components SAS
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd, a Korean LED chip manufacturer and proprietor of European Patent EP 3 404 726 relating to ultraviolet light-emitting devices, brought an infringement action against Laser Components SAS before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. The court found that Laser Components' UVC LED chips (PKB-H02-F35, PKC-H02-F35, and PKD-H02-F35) infringed claims 1 and 18 of the patent, and granted injunctive relief, corrective measures, and information disclosure orders, while reserving the question of damages.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd. v.Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico
This is a procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1, in which the court addressed the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court exercised its discretion to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, rather than separating them, citing reasons of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided on the basis of a uniform interpretation of the patent by the same panel.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.Aylo Premium Ltd and Others
This is a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680, which relates to video streaming technology. The plaintiffs, DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., allege infringement against multiple defendants including Aylo Premium Ltd, Aylo Billing Limited, Aylo Freesites Ltd, Aylo Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The order at hand is a preparatory ruling by the judge-rapporteur structuring the upcoming oral hearing scheduled for May 7-8, 2025, identifying key issues for discussion including claim construction, the formulation of the plaintiffs' requests, and questions regarding the defendants' counterclaim for revocation.
Viking Arm AS v.Stanley Black & Decker Sweden AB, Stanley Black & Decker Inc., and Stanley Black & Decker Deutschland GmbH
Viking Arm AS filed an infringement action against three Stanley Black & Decker entities concerning European Patent EP3953541, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. Both parties subsequently agreed to withdraw their respective actions, and the court declared the proceedings closed without issuing a costs decision.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action relating to European patent n° 2 403 266. Samsung, as applicant, requested a uniform deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all Defendants, citing that service had not yet been effected on Defendant 1 in Korea and that other Defendants had been served on different dates. The parties agreed to a virtual service date of 5 May 2025, and the Presiding Judge granted the request, setting the deadline for the Statement of Defence to 5 August 2025 for all Defendants uniformly.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the protection of trade secrets and confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The court classified certain financial information submitted by the defendant as confidential and restricted access to a limited number of persons on the plaintiff's side. The plaintiff raised no objections to the classification, and the order was issued by mutual agreement of the parties.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo of Europe SE, Nintendo Co., Ltd.
The defendants (Nintendo) requested that certain sales and profit figures in their Statement of Defense and Exhibit BP08 be declared confidential under Rule 262A RoP, with access restricted to two named persons from the claimant. The claimant (Malikie Innovations) sought to extend access to two additional employees and challenged the scope of the confidentiality order regarding information obtained from third parties. The Court granted the confidentiality request, extended access to the two additional claimant employees, and held that the claimant bears the burden of verifying whether third parties disclosing such information are bound by confidentiality agreements.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal Lda., and bioMérieux Benelux BV
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 756 767 B1. The court exercised its discretion under Article 33(3)(b) UPCA to refer the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, where a revocation action was already pending, while proceeding with the infringement action. The Claimant requested the referral and the Defendants did not object, leading the Panel to treat the matter as a unanimous request.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 466 498 B1. The court granted the plaintiff's application under R. 262A RoP for protection of confidential information, classifying certain cost-related details (invoice numbers, hourly rates, hours worked) submitted in cost determination proceedings as confidential. The court found the plaintiff's interest in confidentiality outweighed the defendants' interest in full access, particularly since the plaintiff did not seek to restrict the circle of entitled persons but only to prevent disclosure to third parties.