European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 5 of 92 · 2,185 total
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al. (Pfizer and BioNTech entities)
This is a case management order from the Unified Patent Court's The Hague Local Division in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA (GSK) against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively PBNT) concerning European Patent EP2590626, which relates to Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine products. The order addresses procedural matters arising after the interim conference, including the admission of late-filed exhibits, clarification of the scope of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests to be relied upon at the upcoming oral hearing, and the rejection of certain unsolicited submissions.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Windhager's appeal as inadmissible because its Statement of appeal was not electronically signed within the non-extendable two-month time period under Rule 224.1 RoP. The Court held that logging into the CMS with two-factor authentication does not satisfy the signature requirement under Rule 4.1 RoP, and that the signature requirement is not part of the formal examination under Rule 229 RoP. Windhager's belated application for re-establishment of rights was also rejected as inadmissible.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that an appeal filed without the required electronic signature under Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure is not a valid filing, and a subsequently signed appeal submitted after the two-month deadline under Rule 224.1 cannot cure the defect. Windhager's appeal against the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 was therefore rejected as inadmissible, along with its belated applications for restoration of rights and additional filing time.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 805 415 B1. The Japanese plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., requested simultaneous interpretation from German to Japanese for the oral hearing and permission for Japanese representatives to participate via video conference. The court allowed the plaintiff to hire interpreters at its own cost using the existing courtroom equipment, but declined to order court-funded interpretation, finding that the plaintiff was not disproportionately burdened by the German language of proceedings.
Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is an appeal from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning provisional measures related to European patent EP 3 689 198, owned by SharkNinja. The Court of Appeal set aside the first instance decision that had dismissed SharkNinja's application for provisional measures regarding EP 3 689 198, finding that the patent was more likely than not valid and infringed by SEB's Cookeo Infinity cooking devices. The court ordered SEB to cease infringing activities in France and Germany, imposed penalty payments for non-compliance, and required SEB to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
This order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns the release of an expert's detailed description (ausführliche Beschreibung) prepared during an inspection and preservation of evidence proceeding under Articles 58 and 60 of the UPCA, and the protection of confidential information. The applicant Topsoe A/S, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, sought disclosure of the detailed description, while respondent SYPOX GmbH sought extensive redactions. The court ordered partial redaction of the detailed description, restricted disclosure to specific named natural persons on Topsoe's side, and rejected SYPOX's request for an Attorney-Eyes-Only restriction.
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 645 903. The applicant, Valeo Electrification, filed a request under Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The respondent, SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, challenged the request, arguing certain information was publicly known. The court found the request admissible and substantively justified, establishing a confidentiality club limited to four named individuals from the respondent's side.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to digital audio signal decoding, sued HMD Global Oy before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court for infringement, alleging that HMD's Android smartphones and tablets implementing the USAC standard infringed the patent. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, which it made conditional upon a finding of infringement. The Court examined infringement first and concluded that Orange failed to prove infringement because the USAC decoder's transition mechanism relies on the FAC (Forward Aliasing Cancellation) tool, which transmits additional corrective information inconsistent with the patent's teaching of avoiding such additional data transmission.
LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan issued a final decision in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1, owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH, relating to a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court held that the plaintiff LS9 GmbH, a legal person whose business purpose was seminars and publications, had standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, and that the action was not an abuse of process despite allegations of being a shell company. The court found the subject matter differed from a parallel revocation counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division, and ultimately dismissed the revocation action insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of the defendant's auxiliary request 1.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of certain claims through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals, partially revoked the patent by limiting it to a specific restricted claim wording, and ordered Hartmann to bear the majority of the costs.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked EP 2 755 901, a patent owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S concerning a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann's appeals against the first instance decision were rejected, while Omni-Pac's appeal on the counterclaim for revocation succeeded to the extent that the patent was narrowed to a specific modified claim wording. The court found that the broader claim 1 lacked novelty and/or inventive step over prior art, but the modified claims incorporating additional features (label covering the nose and apertures, nose working as a hook) were patentable.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals and partially revoked the patent, limiting it to a specific amended claim wording that incorporated additional features regarding the label covering the nose and apertures and the nose working as a hook.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company, Disney Electronic Content, Inc. et al.
This case before the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerned enforcement proceedings related to EP 2 465 265. The claimant, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., withdrew its request dated 23 July 2026 for the imposition of penalty payments on the various Disney defendants. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the enforcement proceedings closed, and ordered the claimant to bear the costs.
SprintRay Inc. v.Defendants (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that under Article 49(6) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, the language of the patent (German) is the mandatory language of proceedings before the Central Division, with no legal basis for a change. The court also rejected the auxiliary requests to file submissions in English, conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, and permitted simultaneous interpretation at the defendants' own cost only if properly requested in German.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related actions concerning EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, where the language of the patent is binding. The auxiliary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English were also rejected.
SprintRay Inc. v.Liechtenstein (UPC_CFI_2020/2025, UPC_CFI_2034/2025)
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Paris rejected the defendants' request to change the language of proceedings from German to English in two related cases concerning European Patent EP 3 762 212 B1. The court held that there is no legal basis under the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure for changing the language of proceedings before the Central Division, as Article 49(6) UPCA establishes the patent language as the mandatory language of proceedings. The court also rejected the defendants' subsidiary requests to file submissions in English and to conduct the interim conference and oral hearing in English, while granting leave to appeal on the ground that the question is of fundamental importance.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This order of the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights filed by AorticLab in proceedings involving EP 2 129 425. The underlying dispute arose from Emboline's infringement action and AorticLab's conditional counterclaim for revocation, which the Local Division Munich left undecided after finding no infringement. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, granted re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Europe Ltd., Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, and Micron Semiconductor France SAS
This is an order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning the protection of confidential information in a patent infringement action involving EP 3 909 047. The Defendants (Micron entities) sought to restrict the Claimant's (Yangtze Memory Technologies) access to technical details about the Z01M die to 'attorneys' eyes only' or, alternatively, to a single employee subject to a five-year bar from SDRAM R&D work. The Court rejected these restrictions, holding that the Defendants failed to demonstrate why the existing Confidentiality Club was insufficient, and granted access to the Claimant's UPC representatives and the four employees it had identified.
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 003 087 B1. The Claimant, Boa Technologies Inc., filed an application under Rule 30(2) RoP seeking permission to lodge subsequent auxiliary requests (Main request bis and Auxiliary requests 1bis–12bis) in response to new arguments raised by the Defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur provisionally allowed the introduction of the auxiliary requests but stayed the assessment of the application to be decided alongside the main proceedings, granting the Defendants an additional term to respond and requiring the Claimant to address the consequences of a recent Court of Appeal decision.
Network System Technologies LLC v.Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing two procedural matters arising from infringement proceedings involving European patents EP 1 552 399, EP 1 552 669, and EP 1 875 683. The court rejected as inadmissible NST's appeals against the Munich Local Division's dismissal of its R. 190 RoP applications for evidence production, finding them filed outside the mandatory 15-day appeal period. The court also rejected as inadmissible NST's new R. 190 RoP applications filed directly with the Court of Appeal, holding that refiling substantially the same evidence production request without new facts would circumvent the appeal mechanism.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC Court of Appeal)
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the decision of the Local Division, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals. The court addressed issues including the temporal applicability of the UPC Agreement, the interpretation of patent claims incorporating manufacturing processes, and the jurisdiction of the UPC over pre-existing facts.
BARCO NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. & Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
This is a procedural order from the UPC Local Division Brussels concerning EP 3 732 827. BARCO sought leave to amend the patent by introducing a new auxiliary request (AR6) following an adverse outcome at the EPO Opposition Division oral hearing. The Court dismissed BARCO's application, holding that the conditions of R. 263 RoP and R. 30 RoP were not met because the amendment could have been foreseen from the outset, BARCO failed to align its UPC and EPO proceedings in a timely manner, and there was no sufficient connection between the proposed changes and YEALINK's specific invalidity arguments.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights. AorticLab had filed a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement, and after the Local Division Munich found no infringement, AorticLab missed the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal rejected Emboline's request for review, granted AorticLab's application for re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's late-filed appeal admissible.