European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 38 of 84 · 2,007 total
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCO
The Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court addressed a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 028 981 B1, which relates to a juice extractor. The Claimant, Hurom Co., Ltd., alleged that slow juicers marketed by the Defendants under the name 'AUTO10' infringed the patent. The court established key principles on the intertemporal applicability of substantive law under the UPCA versus national laws, holding that UPCA applies to ongoing infringing acts continued after 1 June 2023, and that information rights under the UPCA extend to pre-entry-into-force periods. The court found partial infringement and ordered remedies including injunctive relief, information disclosure, destruction, recall, and removal from commerce.
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.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
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.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd and CUPOWER Europe GmbH
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1, which relates to a boost power factor correction (Boost-PFC) circuit. The court held that the accused LED driver embodiment did not infringe the patent because its capacitor did not satisfy the claimed decoupling element requirement, while also rejecting the defendants' validity attacks, including new arguments raised only at the oral hearing.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This order concerns the withdrawal of three appeals filed by 10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College against orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning the production of documents in infringement proceedings against Vizgen, Inc. relating to EP 4108782. The appellants applied for withdrawal of the appeals with the respondent's consent, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 4108782, in which 10x Genomics and Harvard College (appellants) sought to withdraw their appeals against three orders of the Local Division Hamburg that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP. Vizgen consented to the withdrawal, and neither party sought a cost decision. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Vizgen, Inc.
10x Genomics and Harvard College (collectively '10x') appealed three orders of the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court that had partially granted Vizgen's requests for production of documents under R. 190.1 RoP in infringement proceedings concerning EP 4108782. Before a decision on the appeals, 10x requested withdrawal of all three appeals, and Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, terminated the appeal proceedings, and noted that no cost decision was needed since both parties waived cost claims.
Sumi Agro Limited and Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1. The court rejected both parties' applications under Rule 36 RoP for leave to exchange further pleadings in the infringement proceedings. The plaintiff had improperly introduced new arguments about equivalent patent infringement in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation without first obtaining leave, and its subsequent formal application was filed too late and lacked sufficient justification.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Pfizer Europe MA EEIG and Others
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Applicant v.Defendant (UPC_CFI_142/2025)
The applicant, as registered and sole proprietor of a European Patent, sought an order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP to preserve evidence (Saisie) against the defendant, alleging highly probable infringement of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim rejected the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a sufficient degree of probability that the asserted claim combination was infringed, and that the requested measures—including requiring the defendant to actively set up a full test environment—went beyond what Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192 RoP permit.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris seat) addressed a representation issue in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. Following a Court of Appeal order confirming that the claimant's appointed representative could not serve due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers within Suinno, the court declared the representative invalid, granted Suinno 30 days to appoint a new representative (who must ratify prior pleadings), and suspended procedural deadlines during that period.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence regarding European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 before the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in Copenhagen. The applicant sought release of seized CAD files to establish alleged patent infringement by the respondents' hybrid generator products (MPU 1000, 2000, and 3000). The court ordered that the CAD files be released to the applicant's representatives under confidentiality obligations, declined to impose the previously set penalty payments since the IT expert had eventually gained access to the encrypted computer, and postponed the decision on costs until the main proceedings.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International, Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against European Patent EP 3 504 989 (titled 'VAPORIZATION DEVICE SYSTEMS'), owned by Juul Labs International, Inc., before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. NJOY argued the patent was invalid for added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Juul Labs sought to maintain the patent as granted or as amended. The Court revoked the patent as granted but maintained it in amended form based on Auxiliary Request 1, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
UPM-Kymmene Oyj v.Virdia Inc.
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492, owned by Dyson Technology Limited, before the Central Division Milan of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the proceedings were stayed and subsequently the Claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the Defendant's consent. The Court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the Claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Valentis Baltic UAB
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Dyson Technology Limited
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2043492 owned by Dyson Technology Limited before the Central Division Milan. After the parties reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, the claimant requested withdrawal of the revocation action with the defendant's consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000).
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected its prior order of December 2, 2024 to include in the operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Heraeus Precious Metals) with Heraeus Electronics in the nullity counterclaim proceedings. The court also deferred its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application seeking to bar the nullity counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent based on alleged res judicata from a prior Federal Patent Court decision, ruling that a decision before the main hearing on July 1, 2025 would jeopardize the unified proceedings under Rule 363.2 RoP.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning an application by the defendant under R 36 RoP for leave to file a further pleading. The defendant sought to introduce a January 6, 2025 decision of the Chinese State Intellectual Property Office that fully invalidated the corresponding Chinese patent based on the same prior art. The court rejected the application, finding the request was filed more than six weeks after the Chinese decision without justification, the decision was submitted only in Chinese rather than the German procedural language, and granting leave would prejudice proper preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.