European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 34 of 84 · 2,007 total
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The court addressed Heraeus's request to extend its reply deadline and Vibrantz's request for clarification of deadlines. The court corrected the start date of Heraeus's reply period to March 18, 2025, when its UPC representative was granted access to unredacted documents, but rejected the extension request, holding that vacation plans of Confidentiality Club members cannot affect procedural deadlines.
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. & Ltd. v.Siltronic AG and Hinterberger GmbH & Co.KG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected a request by Siltronic AG to review an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning European Patent EP 3 212 356 B1, which relates to shaped saw wire with controlled curvature at bends used in semiconductor wafer cutting. The court held that the original order, which included inspection of premises and seizure of delivery notes and invoices, was appropriate to secure evidence of alleged infringement. The court also found that the existing confidentiality regime sufficiently protected the respondents' interests.
Alpinestars Research S.p.A v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Alpinestars Research S.p.A. (Defendant No. 2) in an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the UPC Milan Local Division, particularly with respect to alleged infringement in Spain (a non-UPC country). The court dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction over defendants domiciled in Italy, including over alleged infringement of European patents validated in non-UPC countries such as Spain.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. and Meril Italy S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent No. 3669828. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation notified the court of its intention to enforce specific parts of a decision dated 4 April 2025 pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP. The defendants (Meril entities) agreed not to request a translation and confirmed compliance with the relevant orders, and the court ordered the issuance of an authentic paper copy of the decision.
Ona Patents SL v.Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG, Apple GmbH, and Apple Retail France EURL
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. EP 2 263 098 B1, addressing the bifurcation question under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided, with the consent of the parties, to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, citing efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided by the same panel based on a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Syngenta Limited v.Sumi Agro Limited & Sumi Agro Europe Limited
Syngenta Limited applied to the Local Division Munich for leave to amend its claim to extend the territorial scope of the infringement action to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom, following the ECJ's decision in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v. Electrolux AB (C-3999/22). Sumi Agro opposed, arguing the amendment could have been made earlier with reasonable diligence. The Court granted the application, holding that Syngenta could not reasonably have been expected to include the non-UPC territories in its original statement of claim, and adjusted the procedural timetable accordingly.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants (expert companies) sought to recover €111,000 in costs after the patent was revoked and the infringement action was dismissed. The court rejected the cost assessment application as inadmissible because it was filed more than one month after the decision was served, as required by Rule 151 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 concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The claimants sought recognition of attempted service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) as valid, or alternatively substituted service, after the registered letter was notified for collection but left unclaimed. The court applied Rule 271.6(b) RoP and deemed service on Defendant 4 effective on 14 March 2025, ordering the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
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 from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 065 184 B1, in which three of the eight defendants (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) requested security for legal costs under Rule 158 RoP. They argued that the Claimant, Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd., was financially vulnerable as part of the loss-making Maxeon Group and was based in Singapore outside the EU, making enforcement of any cost order difficult. The Court found the request admissible and largely well-founded, ordering the Claimant to provide security of EUR 100,000 within six weeks, while granting leave to appeal.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited, Google Commerce Limited
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The court decided, with the consent of both parties, to hear the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly rather than bifurcating the proceedings. The decision was based on considerations of efficiency and the benefit of having validity and infringement decided together by the same panel for a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Headwater Research LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
The plaintiff, Headwater Research LLC, sought severance of its patent infringement action against the fifth defendant (Flextronics International Europe B.V.) from the proceedings against the other four defendants under Rule 303(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich rejected the severance request, finding that joint proceedings served procedural economy because the cases concerned the same allegedly infringing embodiment and overlapping infringement questions, and that any delays were attributable to the plaintiff's own error in initially suing a non-existent party.
Shanghai Jinko Green Energy Enterprise Management Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Jinko Solar Co., Ltd. v.LONGi Solar Technologie GmbH, Energy3000 solar GmbH, Longi (Netherlands) Trading B.V., LONGi Green Energy Technology Co. Ltd., LONGI SOLAR FRANCE SARL., Soltech Energy GbR
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning service of process in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 4 372 829. The court addressed the question of whether service on Defendant 4 (Soltech Energy GbR) via registered letter that was not collected by the addressee should be deemed valid. Applying Rule 271.6.b of the Rules of Procedure, the presiding judge deemed service on Defendant 4 to have been completed on 14 March 2025 and ordered the statement of defence to be filed by 16 June 2025.
STADAPHARM GmbH v.Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V.
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
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 from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 065 184 B1, dealing with the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP. Defendants 1, 2, and 4 (Aiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, and Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V.) sought to extend a prior confidentiality order to cover additional green-shaded financial information in their Rejoinder and Exhibit HL 41. The court granted the extension for the specific identified information but rejected the broader request to extend confidentiality to all future submissions as too vague and indeterminate.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA filed a patent infringement action against 14 Pfizer entities concerning European Patent EP 4 183 412 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Prior to the closure of the written procedure, the Claimant withdrew the infringement action, and the Defendants consented to the withdrawal and did not object to a 60% reimbursement of court fees. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 201,600) to the Claimant.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc. and others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the continuation of written proceedings in an infringement action regarding EP 4 108 782. The claimants had initially filed 55 auxiliary requests, which were later reduced to 4, and the court ordered the immediate continuation of the written procedure to preserve the agreed oral hearing date of 17/18 September 2025. The court set deadlines for the parties' further written submissions and requested confirmation regarding an interim conference.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan concerning a revocation action filed by EOFLOW Co., Ltd. against Insulet Corporation's European Patent EP4201327, which relates to fluid delivery devices for insulin management. The court dismissed EOFLOW's request for further written submissions, declared US patent 6656159 (Flaherty) inadmissible as late-filed prior art, and ordered EOFLOW to provide EUR 500,000 as security for costs within three weeks.
Ericsson GmbH and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Motorola Mobility LLC
Ericsson withdrew its second counterclaim for revocation of EP 3 780 758 and the associated appeal before the Court of Appeal, following the Local Division Munich's rejection of the counterclaim as inadmissible based on a preliminary objection by Motorola. Both parties consented to the withdrawal and agreed that each would bear its own costs. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to Ericsson.
TGI Sport Suomi Oy (formerly Supponor Oy), TGI Sport Virtual Limited (formerly Supponor Limited), Supponor SASU, TGI Sport Italia S.r.l. (formerly Supponor Italia S.r.l.), and Supponor España SL v.AIM Sport Development AG
This appeal concerned orders of the Helsinki Local Division granting AIM Sport Development AG leave to amend its Statement of claim under R. 263 RoP and to add TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a new defendant under R. 305 RoP in a patent infringement action. The appellants (TGI entities) challenged the orders on grounds of inadmissibility and procedural unfairness. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion and that the scope of review on appeal regarding such discretionary decisions is limited.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH v.Accord Healthcare Group & Novartis AG (Application for Access to Documents under Rule 262 RoP)
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH applied for access to documents filed in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action between the Accord Healthcare group and Novartis AG concerning EP2501384. After the main proceedings were settled and closed, Novartis withdrew its opposition to the access request, subject to redaction of personal data. The Court granted the application and instructed the Registry to produce redacted copies of the requested documents within 15 days.
Yellow Sphere Innovations GmbH & Erwin Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert AG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court heard an infringement action concerning EP 3 356 109 B1, directed at a frame for a vehicle with structural parts made of foam resin. The plaintiffs, who had developed the patented technology under a development agreement with the defendant (a caravan/motorhome manufacturer) but without any licensing arrangement, alleged that the defendant used their technology in models including the 'Travelino', 'Deseo', and 'Azur'. The court found partial infringement, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and awarded damages and compensation, while also addressing the interpretation of product-by-process claims and compensation under Article 67 EPC.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application under Rule 353 of the Rules of Procedure for correction of a decision dated March 7, 2025, in proceedings regarding European Patent No. EP 2 011 218 B1. The plaintiff, Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG, sought two corrections: deletion of the phrase 'direkt oder indirekt' from claim 7 of auxiliary requests 3, 5, 6, and 7, and addition of attorney Alexander Bach to the case heading. The court granted the first correction as a clerical error but rejected the second, holding that parties are not entitled to have all attorneys from the same firm listed in the decision heading.
Corning Incorporated v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., TCL Belgium SA, LG Electronics Deutschland GmbH, LG Electronics European Shared Service Center B.V., LG Electronics European Holding B.V.
This procedural order concerns patent EP 3 296 274 before the Local Division Mannheim. The defendants, belonging to three competing groups (TCL, Hisense, and LG Electronics) and all represented by the same counsel, applied for separation of proceedings to avoid sharing sensitive supply chain information among competitors. The court rejected the applications, holding that any potential conflicts arose solely from the defendants' choice to be represented by identical counsel and that it was the representative's obligation to manage such conflicts internally.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. (Erik Krahbichler, Third Party)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses the withdrawal of various applications filed in the course of infringement proceedings. After third party Erik Krahbichler withdrew his application for access to the file, defendants Meril filed applications for cost reimbursement and protection of confidential information. Following guidance from the judge-rapporteur referencing a similar order from the Central Division Paris Seat, Meril withdrew these applications, and the court permitted the withdrawals, closed the workflows, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.