European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 38 of 92 · 2,185 total
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
This case concerns an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, sought inspection at the respondent's trade fair stand at the EMO Messe Hannover, which was ordered and executed in September 2025. Following the respondent's failure to assert any confidentiality interests regarding the expert's detailed description, the court ordered disclosure of the unredacted version to the applicant.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC. v.Troy Chemical Company B.V et. al.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC initiated infringement proceedings against Troy Chemical Company B.V., Troy Chemie GmbH, and several Azelis entities concerning European Patent EP3286270. None of the six defendants filed a statement of defence or counterclaim, and the parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings. The claimant subsequently applied for withdrawal of the action with the defendants' consent, and the Court granted the withdrawal along with confidentiality for the settlement-related annexes and a 60% reimbursement of court fees.
Genentech, Inc. - F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. - N.V. Organon
1. A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings in application of R. 197.3 RoP: a) First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” (cf. LD Munich 28 May 2025, UPC_CFI_63/2025 and LD Düsseldorf 16 April 2025, UPC_CFI_539/2024) decided to issue an “ex parte” order to preserve evidence/for inspection (R.194.1(d) RoP juncto R. 194.2 RoP). In this assessment, the Court should take into consideration the facts and evidence (i) brought forward in the application for an
American Wave Machines, Inc. v.Surftown GmbH a. o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 728 089 B1, addressing the Defendants' application for review under R. 333.1 RoP of a case management order that had dismissed their requests to extend time periods for filing a Rejoinder, a Reply to the Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation, and a Defence to the Claimant's Application to amend the patent-in-suit. The court found the request for review admissible but unfounded, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate any hindrance or complication of legal defence warranting an extension, and that merely having less time than the opposing party does not constitute compelling reasons for extending statutory deadlines.
Solvay Specialty Polymers Italy S.p.A. v.Zhejiang Fluorine Chemical New Material Co. a.o.
1. One of the circumstances relevant to admission to a confidentiality club is whether the individual is an employee of the party, an employee of the party’s economic unit or an employee of a third party. 2. If it is possible for a person who is not an employee of the party to join a confidentiality club, it is – depending on the relevant circumstances of the case – in any case justified for employees of the party or its economic unit to be admitted to a confidentiality club. UPC_CFI_7
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.1.Andreas Rentmeister e.K.; 2. Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division issued an order under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure declaring that the steps already taken to serve an application for provisional measures on Defendant 2 (Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.) constituted good service. The Court found that formal service via the Hague Convention through the Chinese Central Authority had failed despite multiple inquiries, and that further delay was incompatible with the urgent nature of provisional measure proceedings.
Faro Technologies, Inc. v.Blankenhorn GmbH
This is a cost assessment proceeding (Kostenfestsetzungsverfahren) related to a prior main case (UPC_CFI_500/2025) concerning European Patent EP 4 001 835. Faro Technologies, Inc. sought cost assessment against Blankenhorn GmbH, the respondent from the main proceedings. The court permitted the withdrawal of the cost assessment application after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and the respondent did not object, declaring the cost assessment procedure terminated without a costs decision.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Lepu's application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a provisional injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech concerning European Patent EP 2 387 951. The court held that Lepu failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Occlutech's interest in preventing the established imminent patent infringement.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures regarding alleged infringement of EP 4 249 647, which relates to an electrolytic medium and electropolishing process. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance order that had granted an injunction against OTEC, finding that STEROS failed to demonstrate that the attacked embodiment (electropolishing medium EF 16-11) contained a non-conductive fluid with conductivity no greater than 10 micronS/cm as required by claim 1 of the patent. The Court held that experimental data not disclosed in the patent specification are generally not relevant to claim interpretation.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH a. o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 850 660, in which Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. filed three infringement actions against four Micron entities on 6 October 2025. Defendants 2 to 4 requested an extension of time periods for lodging preliminary objections and filing the statement of defence, citing the exceptionally large scope of the litigation campaign and the extensive technical evidence submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant objected, arguing that the technical reports had been known to the counterparties since 2024 and that global coordination did not justify delay. The Court granted the extension, setting the deadline for preliminary objections at 24 November 2025 for all Defendants and extending the deadline for the statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation to 16 March 2026.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V. v.HL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for legal costs in provisional measures proceedings concerning European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The court held that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of substantiation regarding the alleged difficulty of enforcing a costs order in the United States, as their reliance on a prior Munich Local Division order was insufficient to establish facts specific to this case.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
Dolle A/S v.Farko a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, with Dolle A/S as plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and four FAKRO entities (from Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Poland) as defendants and counterclaimants. The decision addresses three key legal points: the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, procedural rules regarding the timing of validity attacks in revocation counterclaims, and the interpretation of general claim terms in light of prior art cited in the patent. The Local Division Hamburg issued its decision on November 5, 2025, confirming the disclosure standard for priority as corresponding to the added matter standard.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH
This is an appeal decision from the Court of Appeal concerning European Patent EP 3 223 320, owned by Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd., against expert e-Commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH. The appeal concerns the assessment of added matter (unzulässige Erweiterung) under Article 123(2) EPC, particularly where the patent was derived from an international application not filed in an official EPO language. The Court of Appeal addressed key legal questions regarding the role of translations of international applications and the standard for assessing disclosures in earlier applications.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al
1 UPC_CFI_666/2024 UPC_CFI_ 199/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Local Division The Hague delivered on 3/11/2025 concerning: order after interim conference (R. 105.5) Date of receipt of Statement of claim : 07/11/2024 The Walt Disne
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et. al.
This is an order issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim on November 3, 2025, in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 799 333. The plaintiff, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, brought the action against numerous defendants affiliated with the Geely automotive group, including entities related to Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart brands. The case involves an opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure, and the order was issued by the Rapporteur Judge Sender.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order from the Central Division Paris addresses Belparts Group N.V.'s application to join its counterclaim for infringement with the main infringement action pending before the Local Division Munich, in the context of multi-jurisdictional proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3812870. The dispute involves parallel infringement and revocation actions across the Local Division Munich and the Central Division Paris, with all IMI defendants consenting to the referral. The panel considered Rule 340.1 of the Rules of Procedure regarding connection of cases, taking into account the scheduling of proceedings and the pending Boards of Appeal hearing at the European Patent Office.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Vivo Mobile Communication entities (respondents in the appeal) requested the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court to stay the first instance infringement proceedings and/or extend the time limit for filing their Statement of Defense and Counterclaim for Revocation, pending the outcome of a confidentiality appeal and a preliminary objection challenging the UPC's jurisdiction over a FRAND rate determination claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that R. 21.2 RoP did not apply because the pending appeal was not against a decision on a preliminary objection, and that as a general rule it is not for the Court of Appeal to decide on stays or time extensions in proceedings pending before the Court of First Instance.
Occultech GmbH. v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. a. o.
This is an order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686 B2, issued on October 31, 2025. The applicant, Occlutech GmbH, sought provisional measures in a patent infringement matter. The order sets out key legal principles regarding the scope of protection of device claims, the burden of presentation and proof in preliminary injunction proceedings, and the handling of disputed translations of prior art documents.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1 Numero di riferimento: UPC_CoA_8/2025 APL_366/2025 Ordinanza della Corte d'appello del Tribunale unificato dei brevetti in merito alla richiesta di garanzia per le spese ai sensi della regola 158 del regolamento di procedura emessa il 30 ottobre 2025 NOTE: • Se necessari
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.Vivo Tech GmbH Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
Sun Patent Trust brought an infringement action against three Vivo entities before the Paris Local Division concerning European Patent EP3852468. Vivo filed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that the Unified Patent Court lacks jurisdiction because Sun Patent Trust's main claim sought a declaration that its licence offer was FRAND and, alternatively, a determination of FRAND terms by the court, which Vivo contended falls outside the UPC's competence. Vivo additionally contested the internal competence of the Paris Local Division under Rule 19.1(b) RoP. Sun Patent Trust countered that the UPC has jurisdiction over FRAND aspects and that the Paris Local Division is competent to hear the case, requesting dismissal of the preliminary objection.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a.o.
The applicant, sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 relating to a counter-current swimming device, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of the respondents ahead of a potential main infringement action. The respondents are wholesale distributors of inverter-controlled pool and garden technology, with the Austrian parent company marketing an 'InverJet' counter-current system. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the inspection and evidence preservation request filed on October 28, 2025.