European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 5 of 84 · 2,007 total
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
A patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 954 091 B1 was filed by Avago Technologies against Telefónica Germany before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before the written procedure was concluded, the claimant withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, and both parties indicated that an out-of-court settlement had been reached. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and set the value of the dispute at EUR 1,000,000.
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
Fives ECL, SAS sought to recover damages from REEL GmbH for lost profits arising from a patent infringement concerning service modules for electrolytic cells used in aluminum production, related to the 2016 Alba Potline 6 tender in Bahrain. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court applied national (German) law since the factual circumstances were completed before the UPC came into force on June 1, 2023. The court dismissed the claim, finding that Fives ECL could not establish that it would have obtained the contract even absent the patent infringement, as it could not be excluded that the potential profit would have been lost even if REEL had submitted a non-infringing alternative offer.
Valeo Systemes D'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch S.A, Robert Bosch Produktie S.A, Robert Bosch DOO, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
The Court of Appeal addressed the admissibility of Valeo's appeal against an order of the judge-rapporteur of the Central Division (Paris section) that granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, ruling the Paris division lacked jurisdiction and transferring the infringement action to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of proceedings. The Court held that the contested order, which granted the preliminary objection without terminating proceedings against one of the parties, fell under neither the first nor the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP, and applied the second sentence of Rule 21.1 RoP by analogy to declare the appeal admissible. The Court also rejected the Bosch entities' subsidiary request to suspend the first instance proceedings.
AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. v.Progress Maschinen & Automation AG
This case concerns an application by AWM S.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. for a cost decision under R. 150 RoP following their successful infringement action and counterclaim for revocation against Progress Maschinen & Automation AG. Progress opposed the application, arguing that its appeal against the first instance decision triggered an automatic suspensive effect under Article 74(2) UPCA. The Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, stayed the cost proceedings pending the outcome of Progress's appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.European Patent Office
Papst Licensing appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court that had upheld the European Patent Office's rejection of its request for unitary effect for European patent EP 3 327 608. The patent, derived from a divisional application of a Euro-PCT application filed in 2005, did not include Malta among its designated states because Malta acceded to the European Patent Convention only in 2007. The Court of Appeal held that Article 3(1) of Regulation 1257/2012 cannot be interpreted to allow registration of unitary effect for a granted European patent that does not include the designation of one of the participating Member States, and accordingly rejected the appeal, with each party bearing its own costs.
Adeia Guides Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. et al.
This case before the Local Division The Hague concerned an infringement claim by Adeia Guides Inc. against The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V., Disney Interactive Studios, Inc., and The Walt Disney Company Limited regarding European Patent EP1969839, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their actions. The court permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 20% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Centripetal Limited's appeal against the Mannheim Local Division's revocation of a Saisie Order that had granted Centripetal's application for preserving evidence and inspecting premises against Palo Alto Networks, Inc. in connection with European patent EP 3 821 580. The Court held that Centripetal's amended requests submitted on appeal, which sought to broaden the scope of the original Saisie Order, were inadmissible because they were filed for the first time on appeal without justification and seriously prejudiced Palo Alto's ability to defend itself.
Bostic, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel technologies France, Henkel AG & Co KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V, Henkel Italia S.r.l
Unified Patent Court decision.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This case concerns a request for a default decision in an ongoing patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_530/2025) before the Local Division Paris. Adobe sought a default decision against KEEEX for failing to provide a bank guarantee for costs within the deadline set by an order of December 19, 2025. The court rejected Adobe's request, finding that KEEEX had acted diligently by providing proof of blocked funds within the deadline and subsequently furnishing the required bank guarantee documents shortly after receiving clarifications from the judge-rapporteur.
Bhagat Textile Engineers v.Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG
This order concerns a request by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG for the release of a €19,000 security for costs previously deposited by Bhagat Textile Engineers following an adverse patent infringement ruling. After the parties reached a settlement agreement regarding the procedural costs owed by Bhagat to Oerlikon, and Bhagat consented to the release, the Court of Appeal ordered the full release and transfer of the security to Oerlikon's bank account.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the service of a preliminary injunction order dated 19 December 2025 on Defendant 2, Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese-based company. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, along with notification via email to Defendant 2's Amazon seller profile address, constitutes good service pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP, with service deemed effective as of 2 February 2026.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd and Andreas Rentmeister e.K.
This procedural order concerns the service of a preliminary injunction issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division in proceedings for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1. The Applicant, Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P., had sought provisional measures against the Defendants, but service on the China-based Defendant 1. proved impossible through the Chinese Central Authority, which certified that no such company existed at the address provided. The Court ordered that publication of the preliminary injunction order on the Court's website, with the names of the parties and file number, constitutes good service on Defendant 1. pursuant to Rule 275.2 RoP.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European patent EP 2 697 391 B1, following infringement proceedings in which the court found partial infringement of claim 14 and ordered costs to be borne 30% by the Claimant and 70% by the Defendant. The Claimant sought reimbursement of costs from both the preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings and the main proceedings, arguing that the cost ceilings should be combined. The court held that PI proceedings and main proceedings have separate cost ceilings, that costs cannot be shifted between the two, and that in cases of partial success, the ceiling must be reduced proportionally to the success rate.
FUJIFILM Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l. v.Dainese S.p.A.
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Alpinestars before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an order of the Milan Local Division that separated proceedings concerning two European patents (EP '364 and EP '117). After the Local Division amended its impugned order and granted leave to appeal, Alpinestars withdrew its request for discretionary review. The Court of Appeal declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to Alpinestars.
EOFlow Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This appeal concerns a confidentiality request filed by EOFlow in proceedings related to a preliminary injunction finding that its insulin pump products infringe Insulet's European patent EP 4 201 327. The Court of Appeal held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of compliance with a court order to communicate information under Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP, and that EOFlow should have filed a R. 262A RoP application rather than relying on R. 262.2 RoP. The Court granted Insulet access to the documents labelled 'confidential,' denied EOFlow's request to restrict Insulet's use of the communicated information, and declined to decide on the remaining requests at that stage.
Agathon AG v.Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH
This is an interim conference order issued by the Milan Local Division in proceedings UPC CFI no. 727/2024 and no. 493/2025, concerning a patent infringement action by Agathon AG against Intercom s.r.l. and KNARR Vertriebs GmbH, along with a counterclaim for revocation. The order addresses procedural matters including the conditional nature of auxiliary requests, admissibility of certain annexes, the framework for arguments on infringement by equivalence, the value of the actions, and the preparation of the oral hearing scheduled for 24 March 2026.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA and Others
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA and five of its European subsidiaries concerning European patent EP 3 756 767 B1, which relates to instruments and methods for detecting biological analytes. The Düsseldorf Local Division bifurcated the case, referring the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division, which amended the patent to maintain only two claims. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding no direct or indirect infringement of the amended claims by the challenged VIDAS 3 instrument and related reagent strips and Solid Phase Receptacles, and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This appeal concerned the scope of confidentiality protection measures under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in patent infringement proceedings involving FRAND licence determinations. The Court of Appeal addressed whether Vivo's employees and internal support staff should have access to highly confidential information (HCI) including comparable licence agreements, and modified the first instance orders to include internal support staff while maintaining access for named employees subject to restrictions on their involvement in licensing negotiations.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns appeals by Ericsson against orders of the Milan Local Division that established a confidentiality regime for the proceedings but rejected Ericsson's request for an 'External Eyes Only' (EEO) regime. The Court of Appeal partially set aside the impugned orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for information contained in three Confidential Licence Agreements, including a five-year licensing bar on the designated natural persons from each party. The Court of Appeal also set a penalty of €1,000,000 per culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case concerns a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division Paris. Nanoval objected under Rule 19 RoP, arguing that ALD France was a 'straw man' for its parent company (ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH), which was already a party in parallel infringement and nullity counterclaim proceedings before the Munich Local Division, rendering the action abusive and creating lis pendens. The court confirmed the order rejecting the objection, holding that ALD France's independent business activity made it a separate party from its parent, and that related companies are not 'the same party' under Art. 33(4) UPCA merely because of a parent-subsidiary relationship.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS
The defendants (Amazon entities) requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings concerning EP2803191. The claimant did not raise substantive objections, merely referring to its previous arguments in similar cases. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the language of proceedings changed to English, the language in which the patent was granted.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court declined to decide at that stage on Merz's request to keep a newly submitted piece of evidence (Exhibit 823) confidential from public access under Article 58 UPCA and R. 262.2 RoP. Merz had uploaded the exhibit under the HC (highly confidential) code without filing a simultaneous application for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP. The Court held that R. 262.2 RoP requests concern future public access requests, not restrictions on disclosure to the opposing party, and that uploading under HC code without a R. 262A RoP application lacks legal basis.
Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL v.Sun Patent Trust
This case concerns cross-appeals before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding confidentiality measures ordered in underlying patent infringement proceedings. Sun Patent Trust sued Vivo entities seeking determination of FRAND licence terms for 4G+ technologies and filed applications for protection of confidential information, ultimately requesting an 'External Eyes Only' regime excluding Vivo's employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the inclusion of named Vivo employees in the access circle, modified the orders to include internal support staff, and permitted use of confidential information for settlement discussions.