European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 4 of 79 · 1,878 total
penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def v.Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-08-03) under reference UPC_EE030B5C43, penalties serve to incentivize that is relevant., 4) There is no legal basis for assessment of whether the def appeared in dispute with Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan, Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Düsseldorf, Germany concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in appeals arising from proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg regarding EP 2 642 632. The Court of Appeal granted Nera's requests to disregard Xiaomi's late-filed expert opinion (Exhibit FBD-T38) and book excerpt (Exhibit FBD-T39), as well as Xiaomi's inventive step arguments based on D1, D2, and D4 that were raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings.
Bostik, Inc., 53226, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, US v.1-Henkel France, 4-Henkel AG & Co. KGaA.
Bostik, Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1 relating to cohesive coatings for snack food packaging, sued multiple Henkel entities for allegedly infringing the patent through their Loctite® Liofol products in several European territories. Henkel filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division declared the patent invalid in its entirety, finding that claim 1 as granted extended beyond the disclosure of the original application (added matter) because it encompassed embodiments with adhesive strength below 118.11 g/cm not supported by the original filing. Consequently, Bostik's infringement action was dismissed and Bostik was ordered to bear all costs.
BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra v.KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-30) under reference UPC_AEFD96D0F6, BIOPSAFE APS, Lasse Henze and Stefan Borch Bilfeldt, AWA Denmark A/S, Stra appeared in dispute with KALTEK S.R.L., via Liguria n. 29, 35020 - Saonara (PD), Italy concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Qord IP Protection LLC v.SmartThings, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics GmbH, and Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V.
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP2047617, owned by IMPRENDITORE PTY LIMITED, brought by Qord IP Protection LLC against SmartThings, Inc. and three Samsung entities. The parties agreed that Defendant 1 (SmartThings, Inc.) would voluntarily appear and be represented by Dr. Ebersohl, subject to alignment of the deadlines for the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for revocation. The judge-rapporteur confirmed the agreed alignment of deadlines to 26 October 2026 for all defendants.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharma France, Merz Therapeutics GmbH
This case concerns a preliminary objection filed by Viatris Santé in an infringement action brought by the Merz entities before the UPC Paris Local Division regarding French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 (based on EP 2 377 536). Viatris sought primarily a stay and for the court to decline jurisdiction in favor of the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris, arguing lis pendens under Article 29 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, and alternatively a stay under Article 30 for related actions. Merz countered that the UPC was first seised and has exclusive jurisdiction over the infringement claim, and that the criteria for related actions under Article 30 were not met.
Sun Patent Trust, Sabine Agé v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH
This is an order from the Paris Local Division following an interim conference in a patent infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order sets the total value of the dispute at 10 million euros (5 million for the infringement action and 5 million for the counterclaim for revocation), schedules oral hearings for 9-11 September 2026, and identifies the main legal points to be argued. The case involves complex issues of claim construction regarding DRX Active Time features, validity challenges based on prior art documents, alleged infringement by 4G+ compatible Vivo devices, and FRAND-related matters including the admissibility of certain claims and anti-trust law defences.
CA, Inc., 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, California 95131 v.Respondent
This case concerns a review request filed by CA, Inc. against a confidentiality order issued by the Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Munich regarding Annex B5 in proceedings involving European Patent EP 1 955 151. CA argued that Rule 262A.3 of the Rules of Procedure was not satisfied because the defendants (Deutsche Telekom AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH) had only submitted a partial extract of the underlying document, and only that extract was available unredacted. The court rejected the review request, holding that an extract from a larger document can qualify as an 'unprocessed document' under Rule 262A.3, and that the rule does not entitle the affected party to view the entire underlying document. The Rapporteur's order of 22 June 2026 was maintained, and leave to appeal was not granted.
1) Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.1) Oleading B.V., 518100 Shenzhen, Guangdong Province
This order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) addressed a dispute regarding the expansion of a confidentiality club in an infringement action concerning EP2337403 and EP3944587. Oppo requested that its counsel be permitted to grant access to certain license materials to additional persons, while KPN objected to expanding the club from five to seven natural persons. The Judge-Rapporteur declined to expand the confidentiality club, finding no substantiated reason to diverge from the parallel Düsseldorf proceedings' regime, and granted limited access to two named individuals under the existing confidentiality regime.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata
In this legal proceeding before LISBON LOCAL DIVISION (decision issued on 2026-07-29) under reference UPC_32C65DC0E1, TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON appeared in dispute with ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC, Legally qualified judge: Sam Granata concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
1- Bystronic Laser AG, 2- Bystronic Austria GmbH v.ASTES4 SA, By a statement of claim filed on 2 April 2026, ASTES4 SA bro
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendants (Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., and Isochronic AG) to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in an infringement action brought by ASTES4 SA based on European Patent EP2164678. The President of the Court of First Instance held that the application was admissible, finding that Article 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the Statement of Defence, and therefore R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to permit earlier filing. On the merits, after balancing the interests of both parties, the President granted the application, ordering that English—the language in which the patent was granted—be used as the language of the proceedings.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V., Dr. R. Raggers (AOMB)
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action brought by CJ CheilJedang Corporation regarding European Patent EP3508580 against multiple defendants, including Eppen Netherlands B.V., three Chinese biotech companies, and Oostvogels Logistics B.V. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence until November 2026 and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's test results on previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and also addressed the separate question of access to seized technical documentation, suggesting a two-step process involving an independent technical expert or bailiff.
Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany v.Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-28) under reference UPC_79AAF0ABDE, Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany appeared in dispute with Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany v.Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_5A90B0CDA0, SYPOX GmbH, Am Waldrand 3, DE-85354 Freising, Germany appeared in dispute with Daniel Severinsson acting as judge-rapporteur, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
22, 80336 München, Deutschland, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
A lawyer (Lars-Oliver Eggersdorfer of Boehmert & Boehmert) applied for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534, citing professional interest in FRAND issues related to audio coding. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found the application admissible and partially justified, granting limited access while protecting confidential information regarding out-of-court licensing negotiations.
Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent v.Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk
In this legal proceeding before Düsseldorf Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-27) under reference UPC_59347E41E1, Dolby International AB,, atives of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnership mbB Patent appeared in dispute with Beko Germany GmbH,, Karaagac Mah. 8 Sokak No: 1A, 59510, Kapakli, Tekirdag, Turk concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Reinhausen GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. Nic v.Respondent
Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 concerning a selector for an on-load tap-changer, sought an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The applicant alleged that the respondent was exhibiting a potentially infringing on-load tap-changer designated 'DET-24kV' at its booth. The Local Chamber Munich granted the inspection order without prior hearing of the respondent, appointing an expert, an assistant, and court bailiffs to carry out the inspection, seizure of documents, and detailed technical analysis of the exhibited product.
WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney D v.ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden
This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., Carnegieplein 5, 2508 DH Den, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Volkmar Henke, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Tilman v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführe, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Andreas Kramer, Powell Gilbert, Königsal-
This order concerns an application by Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, for access to the court files of a concluded patent infringement case (Dolby v. Optoma) concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534. The applicant sought access to better understand why Dolby considered the patent essential to the Opus Audio Codec standard. The court held the application partially admissible and partially well-founded, granting limited access to the statement of claim while rejecting access to exhibits as insufficiently specified.
Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) v.2SEVENTY BIO, INC.
In this legal proceeding before Brussels - Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-23) under reference UPC_9FF93D3A0F, Germany), (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. (*) appeared in dispute with 2SEVENTY BIO, INC. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin, v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem, Rechtsanwalt Jens Künzel, LL.M., KRIEGER MES & GRAF v. der
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order on a third-party request for access to court files from a completed patent infringement case between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The applicant, the law firm Gulde & Partner, sought access to pleadings and evidence for internal training and preparation purposes before the Unified Patent Court. The original parties initially opposed the request citing trade secret concerns, but the plaintiff later withdrew its confidentiality objections while the defendant narrowed its claims to specific information about distribution channel removal measures. The court held the request admissible and partially meritorious, granting access to most documents but with redactions where confidentiality interests prevailed.
Verfahrensvertreter: Linklaters LLP, Taunusanlage 8, 60329 F, Anlage 35-37, 60327 Frankfurt am Main v.Golkowsky, Joachimsthaler Straße 10-12, 10719 Berlin, PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Schmellerstraße 4, 80337 Mü
This case concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff applied to withdraw the nullity action, and the defendant consented. The court granted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings, but reduced the plaintiff's request for a 60% reimbursement of court fees to 50%, applying the amended Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2026.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.,, 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809, USA v.The Walt Disney Company, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 9, Disney Interactive, 500 S Buena Vista St, Burbank, CA 91521,
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-22) under reference UPC_A6ED7D66C6, PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo appeared in dispute with DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.