European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 42 of 84 · 2,007 total
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH
FUJIFILM Corporation sued Kodak entities for infringement of European Patent EP 3 594 009 B1, which relates to lithographic printing plate precursors. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately revoked the patent in all Contracting Member States, finding that the claimed subject-matter lacked novelty over prior art and that the proposed amendments added matter contrary to Article 123(2) EPC. The infringement action was dismissed, and FUJIFILM was ordered to bear the costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
An order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court on January 27, 2025, granting a third-party access request under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Patent attorney Christian Läufer of Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB sought access to the written submissions and evidence in the revocation counterclaim proceedings, citing a professional interest for learning and training purposes. Neither the plaintiff (Avago Technologies) nor the defendants (Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE) objected, and the presiding judge granted the request, limited to the revocation counterclaim workflow.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning an infringement action by Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. against three ASUSTek entities regarding European Patent No. 3 682 587. The defendants requested that the court decide on the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, and the court granted this request, also requesting the assignment of a technically qualified judge to the panel.
SnowPixie Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_244/2024, UPC_CFI_786/2024) v.Ex Parte
In proceedings before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, the defendant in an infringement action sought security for costs of €257,000 against the plaintiff under Rule 158 EPGVerfO, citing the plaintiff's poor credit rating and operating losses. The plaintiff opposed the request and applied for legal aid. The court ordered reduced security of €62,600 and rejected the application for legal aid, finding that the plaintiff was capable of bearing its own costs and providing the ordered security.
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v.ASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. The order, issued by Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, schedules an interim hearing via video conference for September 25, 2025, and an oral hearing in person for November 19, 2025, in Munich.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns a cost reimbursement application following the withdrawal of an application for interim measures related to European Patent EP 1 770 912. The applicant, Avago Technologies, withdrew its interim measures application after the court had already issued an ex parte order, and sought reimbursement of 20% of court fees. The court held that Rule 370.9(b) RoP applies analogously to the withdrawal of an application for interim measures and ordered reimbursement of €2,200.00.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd. v.Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
This order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns an application by Snowpixie Co., Ltd. (defendant in infringement proceedings) for Golf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH (plaintiff in infringement proceedings) to provide security for costs under Rule 158 EPGVerfO. The court found Golf Tech's financial situation sufficiently precarious—given its operating loss and lack of adequate assets—to justify ordering security, but reduced the amount to €62,600 after applying equity considerations. The court also rejected Golf Tech's application for legal aid, finding it capable of bearing its own costs and the ordered security.
Sanofi SA and Others v.Zentiva France and Others
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court scheduling an interim conference and oral hearing in consolidated infringement actions concerning European Patent No. 2 493 466. The claimants are multiple Sanofi entities, and the defendants include Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, and Zentiva, k.s. (among other defendants in related proceedings). The Presiding Judge set the interim conference for 17 July 2025 and the oral hearing for 14-17 October 2025.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd. v.Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
Order
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 3 831 282. DexCom had initiated infringement proceedings against the Abbott companies before the Paris Local Division, which were met by a counterclaim for revocation. The Paris Local Division revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. On appeal, DexCom withdrew its infringement action and the Abbott companies withdrew their counterclaim for revocation, with both parties consenting to closure of the proceedings.
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy & Microsoft Corporation
The Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) applied under Rule 262(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to the written pleadings and evidence in an infringement action between Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy and Microsoft Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 671 173. The applicant argued a specific interest based on the status and representation rights of in-house European Patent Attorneys before the UPC, an issue addressed in prior orders in the proceedings. The Court of First Instance (Paris seat) dismissed the application, holding that the interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighed the applicant's interest in accessing the case file, as the matter was purely legal and of a general nature.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
This is an appeal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 435 866. DexCom appealed a decision of the Paris Local Division that had revoked the patent entirely and dismissed DexCom's infringement claims. Following the appeal, both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation, and the Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered 60% reimbursement of appeal court fees to DexCom.
NEC Corporation v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG et al.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of counterclaims for revocation and for a FRAND-license offer filed by certain TCL defendants in a patent infringement action brought by NEC Corporation concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. Following a settlement and the conclusion of a patent licence agreement, the defendants withdrew both counterclaims and sought partial reimbursement of court fees. The court permitted the withdrawals, ordered 60% reimbursement of court fees for both counterclaims, and held that a counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer is subject to court fees by analogous application of Rule 370 RoP.
DexCom, Inc. v.Abbott Laboratories and Others
DexCom, Inc. appealed a decision of the Munich Local Division that revoked EP 3 797 685 entirely and dismissed all infringement claims brought against the Abbott companies. Following the appeal, DexCom applied to withdraw the infringement action, and the Abbott companies consented and applied to withdraw their counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% refund of appeal court fees to DexCom.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning European Patent EP 2 391 947. The order addresses multiple applications including Samsung's filing on Headwater's standing to sue, Samsung's confidentiality application, and Headwater's applications for leave to amend its pleadings. The Court granted Headwater leave to amend its claims, dismissed Samsung's confidentiality application as superfluous, and set deadlines for further submissions and the Interim Conference.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in connection with a partial withdrawal of its infringement action. The dispute centered on Exhibit 70, a settlement agreement between Dainese and Defendant 4 (Horizon Moto 95 - Maxxess Cergy), which Dainese sought to keep confidential from other defendants and third parties. The Court granted confidentiality protection, restricted access to specific named individuals from Defendants 1 and 6, and ordered Dainese to file English translations of the documents.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division concerning Dainese S.p.A.'s application under Rule 262A RoP for protection of confidential information in an infringement action involving European Patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Dainese sought complete refusal of access to unredacted versions of its written submissions, while Defendants 1 (Alpinestars S.p.A.) and 6 (Motocard Bike, S.L.) opposed this and requested access. The Court established a 'confidential club' limiting access to specified lawyers/representatives and natural persons from each party, ordered production of English translations, and granted leave to appeal.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. The order reschedules the interim hearing from May 23, 2025 to May 28, 2025 due to a scheduling conflict, confirms the oral hearing date of July 1, 2025, and sets the end of the written procedure as May 14, 2025.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns European patent EP 3 646 825. Meril (the defendant) sought a partial stay of proceedings regarding Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and an application for the protection of confidential information, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The presiding judge dismissed Meril's application, holding that Rule 295.d RoP does not provide for a partial stay and that no full stay was jointly requested by both parties.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 646 825, dealing with procedural applications following a prior infringement decision. Meril (the defendants) sought an extension of the deadline to comment on Edwards Lifesciences' application for a cost decision, arguing that pending confidentiality issues prevented them from properly responding. The judge-rapporteur lifted all deadlines relating to the cost decision and the protection of confidential information, with new deadlines to be set in due course.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH and Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd.
This order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns European patent EP 3 646 825 and addresses procedural matters related to Edwards's application for a cost decision and competing confidentiality applications under Rule 262A RoP. The court indicated its intention to follow the reasoning of the Central Division (Paris Seat) order of 30 July 2024, which would grant Meril unlimited access to the costs application while restricting third-party/public access under Rule 262.2 RoP. Edwards was invited to comment within 10 days on the confidentiality applications before the court would invite Meril to comment on the costs application.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh & Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 3 646 825, Meril sought a partial stay of proceedings relating to Edwards Lifesciences' cost decision application and a stay of the confidentiality information application, pending a Court of Appeal decision. The judge-rapporteur indicated willingness to order a full stay if both parties agreed, but neither party requested one. Meril then informed the court that its confidentiality stay application would not be maintained if a full or partial stay of the costs proceedings was not granted, rendering a decision on that application unnecessary.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.Accord Healthcare AB and other Accord entities; STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities; Reddy Pharma SAS and other Reddy entities; Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court issued on 22 January 2025, consolidating four parallel patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_145/2024 through UPC_CFI_148/2024) brought by multiple Sanofi entities against Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva regarding European Patent No. 2 493 466. The defendants raised preliminary objections concerning jurisdiction, standing of certain claimants, and the scope of the claims. Following a preliminary interim conference, the court ordered Sanofi to remedy deficiencies in its formal submissions within 7 days, invited defendants to comment within 14 days, waived all other deadlines, and set the values of the infringement claims and counterclaims.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
Revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 613 453 B1 relating to electronic vapour products, filed by NJOY Netherlands B.V. against VMR Products LLC. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat) found that claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 lacked inventive step over prior art, but dependent claims 6, 7, and 8 involved an inventive step and possessed independent validity. The patent was maintained in part based on claims 6, 7, and 8 in combination with claim 1 as granted, with the remainder revoked.