European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 33 of 84 · 2,007 total
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns revocation proceedings before the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Following the parties' joint request, the court allowed the withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by Pfizer against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimants/counterclaimants.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group GmbH, Mammut Sports Group AG
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. Following a January 14, 2025 decision that largely upheld the infringement claim and dismissed the defendants' revocation counterclaim, the defendants sought recovery of 9,732.21 EUR in costs. The court found the defendants had erroneously used a consolidated dispute value of 2,000,000 EUR instead of the 1,000,000 EUR value for the infringement claim alone, and awarded only 4,866.11 EUR in recoverable costs.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order from the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court concerns the withdrawal of a revocation action and counterclaim for revocation filed by various Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Both parties jointly requested the withdrawal, which the court allowed, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the Claimants/Counterclaimants, with no cost decision required.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 186 937. With the consent of the parties, the court granted the application of Defendants 2 to 4 (TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, and TP-Link Enterprises France) dated April 17, 2025, and ordered the stay of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 295 lit. a) of the Rules of Procedure.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., and Energy3000 solar GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning an infringement action related to European patent no. 4 372 829. The order addresses the service of the statement of claim on Defendant 2 (LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd.) and extends the deadline for Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 to lodge their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation until 21 July 2025, following an agreement between the parties.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of both the revocation action and its counterclaim for revocation, with Glaxo's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered no cost decision, and directed reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Pfizer.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1. The court addressed two key issues: whether the use of multiple lawyers and patent attorneys on one side affects cost recoverability, and whether costs from preliminary injunction proceedings are separately recoverable from the main proceedings. The court held that multiple representatives do not bar cost recovery as long as no additional costs are generated, and that the cost caps for interim proceedings and main proceedings must be determined separately.
Pfizer Inc. and others v.GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
This procedural order concerns a revocation action filed by multiple Pfizer entities against GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA regarding European Patent EP 4 183 412 (RSV F protein compositions). Prior to the closure of the written procedure, Pfizer requested withdrawal of the revocation action and counterclaim for revocation, with reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and Glaxo consented. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, ordered reimbursement of 60% of court fees, and set the value in dispute at more than EUR 50,000,000.
Amazon Europe Core S.à r.l. and Others v.Nokia Technologies Oy
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 661 892. Amazon had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that rejected its request under Art. 59 EPGÜ and R. 190 RoP for disclosure of unredacted documents from Nokia. After the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the main infringement action was withdrawn, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP.
Scandit AG v.Hand Held Products, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Scandit AG's application for a 20% refund of court fees following the withdrawal of Hand Held Products' request for preliminary measures. The court held that the withdrawal, filed after the oral hearing had already taken place on January 9, 2025, did not qualify for the 20% refund under Rule 370.9(b)(iii) RoP, because the oral proceedings had already been concluded with the end of the oral hearing.
Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Meril's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division finding infringement of Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 646 825 (relating to a prosthetic heart valve and delivery catheter system). The Court held that Meril failed to demonstrate that the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous or that an exception to the general rule under Article 74(1) UPCA (that appeals do not have suspensive effect) was warranted. Meril's alternative request for a stay of enforcement subject to the provision of security was also rejected.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. - LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. v.HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.P and LAMA France
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a third-party request for access to case files. LIFE365, an Italian company involved in a parallel infringement and revocation proceeding in Italy regarding the same European patents (EP'230 and EP'669), sought access to the file of the UPC proceedings between HP and LAMA France. The court granted partial access, allowing LIFE365 to view only the pleadings related to the validity discussion (in redacted form where necessary), while denying access to documents concerning the infringement discussion, including the technical report.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co. v.Häfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 3 767 151. The Claimant seeks full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty/inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter, while the Defendant seeks dismissal and alternatively proposes 40 auxiliary requests (in two alternative forms, totaling 80) to maintain the patent in amended form. In this Case Management Order, the Judge-rapporteur found the number of auxiliary requests unreasonable and directed the Defendant to limit and/or re-order them, while also addressing case valuation, costs, and offering to facilitate a settlement discussion.
LIFE 365 S.R.L. and LIFE365 ITALY S.P.A. – Access Request in Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.LAMA France (UPC_CFI_358/2023)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Paris, concerning a third-party access request by LIFE365 (Italian companies) to the case file in an infringement action between Hewlett-Packard Development Company (HPDC) and LAMA France regarding European patents EP 2 089 230 and EP 1 737 669. LIFE365 sought access to use arguments and evidence from the UPC proceedings in parallel Italian proceedings before the Court of Genoa. The Judge-Rapporteur granted partial access limited to pleadings concerning validity discussions, while rejecting access to infringement-related documents including the technical report.
Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation v.Moderna Group Entities
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) issued an order in two parallel infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_191/2025 and UPC_CFI_192/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against fifteen Moderna group entities concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected Moderna's request to extend the deadline for filing Preliminary Objections and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, finding that the Moderna entities belong to the same corporate group and likely already had knowledge of the claims.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.TP-LINK Corporation Pte. Ltd. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. Atlas Global Technologies GmbH filed an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against four TP-LINK entities. With the consent of the parties, the court ordered a stay of the proceedings against defendants 2 to 4 pursuant to Rule 295(a) RoP, based on the defendants' application dated March 23, 2025.
Moderna Entities v.Genevant Sciences GmbH & Arbutus Biopharma Corporation
This order concerns procedural applications filed by multiple Moderna entities (defendants in the main infringement proceedings) seeking extensions of deadlines to file preliminary objections and statements of defense in two UPC infringement actions brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation concerning EP 2 279 254 and EP 4 241 767. The court rejected the request to extend the preliminary objection deadline and set a unified deadline of 8 July 2025 for all defendants to file their Statements of Defense, balancing the UPC's objective of expeditious proceedings with the practical difficulties arising from service on fifteen co-defendants across multiple jurisdictions.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V. and Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd.
Barco N.V. appealed an order of the Local Division Brussels dismissing its application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 732 827 and ordering Barco to bear costs up to €112,000. Barco applied for suspensive effect of the appeal regarding the cost order, arguing enforcement difficulties in China and that the cost order was not a concrete payment obligation. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for suspensive effect as unfounded, finding no manifest error and that enforcement risks did not render the appeal devoid of purpose.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE and Others
Promosome LLC brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, targeting several Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant (embodiment 2b), arguing it was produced and sold only before 1 June 2023, making jurisdiction contrary to the non-retroactivity principle under Art. 28 VCLT. The judge-rapporteur held that the preliminary objection was admissible but deferred its final determination to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, pending a related Court of Appeal decision.
Atlas Global Technologies GmbH v.Vantiva SA, Vantiva Technologies SAS, and Vantiva Technologies Germany GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 353 901. With the consent of all parties, the court ordered the stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(a) of the Rules of Procedure based on the plaintiff's application dated April 9, 2025.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Kodak's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning EP 3 511 174. The Local Division had found infringement, ordered a permanent injunction with penalties, damages, information, destruction and recall orders, and dismissed Kodak's counterclaim for revocation. The Court of Appeal held that Kodak failed to demonstrate that the first-instance decision contained manifest errors justifying an exception to the principle that appeals have no suspensive effect under Art. 74(1) UPCA.
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, Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 and various Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine variants. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over the Comirnaty® Original/Omicron BA.1 variant, arguing it was only produced and sold before 1 June 2023, relying on Article 28 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP, expressing a non-binding view concurring with existing UPC case law that the UPC has subject-matter competence over allegedly infringing acts committed before the UPCA's entry into force.
DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. v.AYLO Premium Ltd and Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680 in an infringement action. The defendants sought permission under Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Procedure to file additional written submissions regarding allegedly contradictory statements made by the first plaintiff (DISH Technologies) in a parallel US proceeding before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning a related patent (US 8,868,772). The court rejected the application, holding that a party's differing interpretation of another patent in a separate proceeding is not admissible interpretation material for the patent in suit, and that the defendants failed to justify why they could not have introduced the relevant technical facts earlier in the proceedings.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. applied for an order requiring AorticLab srl to provide security for costs in infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425 before the Local Division Munich. The court held that a party filing a counterclaim for revocation qualifies as an 'Applicant' under Art. 69(4) UPCA and can request security for costs, and found that AorticLab's own statements about potential insolvency created a legitimate concern regarding recoverability of costs. The court ordered AorticLab to provide security of €200,000.