European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 44 of 84 · 2,007 total
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
The Local Chamber Vienna of the Unified Patent Court found that STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH infringed European Patent EP 2 643 717 B1 owned by SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH, which relates to a color- and light-mixing collecting optic for outdoor display panels. The court granted injunctive relief, recall, destruction, and removal from distribution channels, as well as a finding of liability for damages, but rejected the plaintiff's request for publication of the decision. The intervener Chainzone Technology was ordered to bear costs jointly with the defendant.
Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE – Withdrawal of Cost Assessment Application v.Ex Parte
This order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed the withdrawal of a cost assessment application filed by Tesla Germany GmbH and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited. While the main infringement and revocation proceedings had been appealed to the Court of Appeal, the cost assessment application remained pending at first instance. The Rapporteur held that the first-instance court retained jurisdiction over the withdrawal of the cost assessment application, and that the Rapporteur alone had original competence under Rule 156.2 RoP to allow the withdrawal.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Dexcom entities concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 before the Local Division Munich. Following the filing of counterclaims for revocation by the defendants and an application to amend the patent by the claimant, all parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the scheduled oral hearing. The Court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered each party to bear its own extrajudicial costs with no reimbursement between the parties.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns the admission of withdrawal of the infringement action and revocation counterclaims, as well as the reimbursement of court fees, in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Chamber Hamburg that partially found infringement and partially invalidated the patent, Avago appealed and subsequently sought to withdraw its infringement action, while Tesla sought to withdraw its revocation counterclaims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered the reimbursement of 60% of the appeal court fees to Avago.
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 an infringement action brought by Dainese S.p.A. against Alpinestars S.p.A. and other defendants regarding European patents EP4072364 and EP3498117. Defendant Alpinestars S.p.A. requested an extension of the deadline for filing its Statement of Defence and counterclaim for revocation to await the outcome of parallel EPO appeal proceedings. The court granted the extension to 27 February 2025, balancing procedural efficiency with the adversarial principle.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Tesla Germany GmbH & Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of claims in proceedings related to European Patent EP 1 612 910. Following a first instance decision by the Local Division Hamburg that partially revoked the patent and dismissed the infringement claim, both parties sought to withdraw their respective claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawals, declared the appeal proceedings terminated, and ordered a 60% refund of court fees to Avago.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message functionality. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that the defendants' 'Barryvox S2' device infringed the patent, while rejecting the defendants' counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered injunctive relief, recall and destruction of infringing products, information disclosure, and damages, while partially dismissing the infringement claim and declining to order publication of the decision.
Sanofi v.Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva (UPC_CFI_145-148/2024)
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerns four consolidated patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel). The dispute centered on access to confidential information contained in Claimants' Exhibit No. D.4 (a witness statement with appendices). The court granted partial confidentiality protection while expanding access beyond Sanofi's requested limitation to only the named UPC representatives, allowing access to specified legal teams and at least one natural person from each Defendant group.
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH v.Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH
Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH sued Mammut Sports Group AG and Mammut Sports Group GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for infringement of European Patent EP 3 466 498 B1, which protects an avalanche victim search device (LVS) with voice message output during search operations. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The court found direct and indirect infringement by the accused 'Barryvox S2' device, dismissed the revocation counterclaim, and ordered injunctive relief, recall, destruction, information, and damages, while allocating costs predominantly to the plaintiff.
Total Semiconductor, LLC v.Texas Instruments EMEA Sales GmbH & Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed whether a judge-rapporteur could issue an order on security for costs under R. 158 RoP and decide on leave to appeal. The court held that while a judge-rapporteur is competent to issue an order on security for costs, such an order is a case management order subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP, and only the panel—not the judge-rapporteur—can decide on leave to appeal. The impugned order of the Mannheim Local Division was revoked and the case referred back to the same panel.
Bentley Motors Limited v.Network Systems Technologies LLC
Bentley Motors Limited filed a revocation action against Network Systems Technologies LLC concerning European patent EP 1 552 399 before the Central Division (Paris seat) of the Court of First Instance. The applicant subsequently applied to withdraw the revocation action, stating it had the respondent's consent and that no party would seek a cost decision. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered that all prior orders in the proceedings be of no effect.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited, and Netgear Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patents Nos. 3 611 989 and 3 678 321. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, Huawei withdrew its application for provisional measures, and the respondents consented to the withdrawal and the release of the security deposit. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the release of the EUR 3,000,000 security deposit to Huawei's legal representatives.
10x Genomics, Inc. and President and Fellows of Harvard College v.NanoString Technologies Inc., NanoString Technologies Germany GmbH, and NanoString Technologies Netherlands B.V.
This revised order concerns proceedings before the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court regarding the number of auxiliary requests filed by the patent proprietor (Harvard College) in its application to amend the patent at issue. The panel modified the judge-rapporteur's earlier order that had limited auxiliary requests to a one-digit number, holding that 55 auxiliary requests were not categorically unreasonable given the complexity of the case and the 42 validity attacks raised in the counterclaim for revocation. The proceedings were stayed pending the EPO Opposition Division decision, and Harvard was ordered to submit its auxiliary requests within 20 days after that decision.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 604. Magna appealed the order, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and noted that no cost decision was needed.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Realtek Semiconductor Corporation
Avago Technologies filed an application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 1 770 912 against Realtek Semiconductor before the Local Chamber Munich. After the court issued an ex parte order on 9 December 2024 that was never served on Realtek, Avago withdrew its application on 3 January 2025. The court allowed the withdrawal without hearing the respondent, terminated the proceedings, and ordered Avago to bear the costs.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
This is a cost determination order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary injunction proceeding. The parties had agreed out of court on the reimbursement amounts (EUR 195,000 for first instance representation, EUR 11,000 in court fees, and EUR 38,000 for appeal representation), totaling EUR 244,000. The sole disputed issue was whether Edwards was entitled to interest on the reimbursed costs at five percentage points above the German base rate. The court rejected the interest claim, holding that neither the UPCA nor the Rules of Procedure provide a legal basis for interest in cost determination proceedings.
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., Netgear International Limited v.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning an action for declaration of non-infringement regarding European Patents EP 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The plaintiffs (Netgear entities) applied for leave to withdraw the action, to which the defendant (Huawei) had consented in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 40% reimbursement of the court fees paid by the plaintiffs.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned European Patent EP 3 320 604 B1. The Claimant, Valeo Electrification, filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and counterclaims, and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 611 989. Both parties jointly applied to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaims. The court granted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and declined to refund court fees due to the timing of the withdrawal declarations.
Valeo Electrification v.Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
This case concerned European Patent EP 3 320 602 B1 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant (Valeo Electrification) filed a patent infringement action on 2 August 2024, and the Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation on 8 November 2024. Prior to closure of the written procedure, both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims and agreed that neither party would seek reimbursement of costs. The Court allowed both withdrawals and declared all proceedings closed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear Inc., and Netgear International Limited
Procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent No. 3 678 321. Both parties agreed to withdraw the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim, and the court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs with a 40% reimbursement of court fees.
air up group GmbH v.Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Munich issued a decision by default against Guangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd. for infringement of EP 3 897 305, a patent protecting a drinking device for retronasal perception of aroma substances. The defendant, a Chinese company, failed to respond to the application served under Rule 275.2 RoP. The court found the patent valid and infringed, ordering the defendant to cease infringing activities across UPC Member States, pay penalties of up to EUR 100,000 per day of infringement, and bear the costs of proceedings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Powell Gilbert LLP
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s appeal against orders granting Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, access to written pleadings and evidence from proceedings concerning provisional measures involving patents EP 2 713 879 and EP 3 831 283. The court held that the general public interest in accessing pleadings and evidence arises after a first-instance decision or order concluding the proceedings is rendered, regardless of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures, whether parallel proceedings exist, or whether the decision addresses all arguments and evidence. The court found Powell Gilbert's request to be reasoned and concluded that the balance of interests favored allowing access.