European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 51 of 92 · 2,185 total
Appellant*** v.ORTHOAPNEA S.L., VIVISOL B BV
1 Beslissing van het Hof van Beroep van het Eengemaakt Octrooigerecht betreffende een verzoek tot intrekking van het beroep uitgesproken op 3 juli 2025 INHOUDSINDICATIE De begroting van de te vergoeden proceskosten na de intrekking van een vordering of beroep is overeenkomstig R. 2
Digital River Ireland, Ltd., Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerns cross-applications for security for costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The plaintiff Headwater Research LLC, asserting infringement of European Patent EP 3 110 072, sought security for costs from the defendants, while the defendants (Motorola entities and Flextronics) sought security from the plaintiff in connection with their counterclaims for revocation. The court held that even though a defendant in an infringement suit is formally the claimant in a revocation counterclaim, they may under Article 69(4) EPGÜ and Rule 158.1 RoP demand security for the costs incurred or to be incurred through that counterclaim, as otherwise the defendant would be unreasonably restricted in their defense.
Advanced Bionics AG v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees for both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and against the counterclaim for revocation, as these constitute separate actions under Art. 32(1) UPCA.
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH, SSAB Europe Oy
This case concerns an appeal by Tiroler Rohre GmbH against a cost assessment order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning EP 2 839 083. Tiroler Rohre had applied for provisional measures against SSAB but withdrew the application after the court indicated concerns during the oral hearing. The Local Division ordered Tiroler Rohre to pay costs, and SSAB subsequently sought detailed cost assessment. Tiroler Rohre appealed, arguing that a separate cost assessment procedure was inadmissible because the cost decision had already been made together with the withdrawal decision under Rule 265 of the Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics GmbH v.Respondent
This decision of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by Advanced Bionics to withdraw a revocation action and a counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP 4 074 373, with the agreement of MED-EL. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees to both parties. The Court rejected the parties' requests for a 100% reimbursement of one of their two appeal fees, holding that separate court fees were required for appeals against the revocation action and the counterclaim for revocation since they constitute separate actions under Article 32(1) UPCA.
Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the plaintiff, SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H., seeking an order requiring the intervenor, Shenzhen Dianming Technology Co., Ltd., to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 169,000.00 in connection with an infringement action concerning European Patent No. 2 643 717 against defendant Yunex GmbH. The intervenor opposed the application, requesting its rejection or, alternatively, a significant reduction in the amount. The presiding judge rejected the application, following the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in a prior decision (AorticLab v. Emboline), holding that security for costs should not be ordered for an admitted intervenor even though such an intervenor is treated as a party for cost reimbursement purposes.
QUANTIFICARE S.A. v.Canfield Scientific, Inc., ESTHETEC SAS, Canfield Scientific GmbH, Canfield Scientific Europe B.V., Canfield Scientific s.r.l.
Quantificare S.A. brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 against five defendants, who in turn filed a revocation counterclaim. The Chamber addressed the procedural question of how to proceed under Article 33(3) of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, which governs combined infringement and revocation proceedings. After hearing the parties, the Chamber ordered a joint hearing of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim under Article 33(3)(a), and instructed the Rapporteur to request the assignment of a technically qualified judge.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_819/2024 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 2 July 2025 Claimant Corning Incorporated, One Riverfront Plaza - 14831 - Corning - US represented by: Dr. Marcus Grosch, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sul
Easee Holding B.V., Easee B.V., *** v.Visibly Inc.
This appeal concerned cross-appeals against an order of the Hamburg Local Division requiring Easee to provide security for legal costs of EUR 75,000 for the revocation action in proceedings involving patent EP 3 918 974. Following the Local Division's order staying the proceedings in their entirety due to insolvency proceedings regarding the Easee companies, the Court of Appeal stayed the appeal proceedings as they were devoid of purpose during the stay.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and addresses applications under Rule 370.11 of the Rules of Procedure for partial reimbursement of court fees. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action on December 27, 2023, against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and Air Liquide Healthcare-related companies. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation on April 19, 2024, and an oral hearing was held on April 9, 2025.
Acer Computer GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by Bardehle Pagenberg Partnerschaft mbB for public access to the written pleadings and evidence filed in main proceedings UPC_CFI_181/2024 (related to European Patent EP2661892 owned by Nokia Technologies Oy), in which HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. was the claimant and Nokia Technologies Oy was the defendant. The main proceedings had been concluded on 27 March 2025 following the withdrawal of the action. The applicant sought access to better understand how the parties and the court conducted the proceedings, arguing that such access supports professional advice by UPC representatives. The defendant Nokia opposed the request, arguing the applicant lacked a specific personal interest and had not sufficiently demonstrated a general interest justifying access.
BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH v.Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
This is a procedural order in a nullity action concerning European Patent EP 4 019 790, filed by BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH against Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH. The plaintiff seeks revocation of claims 1-4 and 7-13, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step, while the defendant defends the patent as granted and through eleven auxiliary requests. The court scheduled an interim hearing for July 11, 2025, to address the determination of the value of the dispute, settlement possibilities, procedural questions regarding patent amendments, and clarification of the parties' requests.
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v.Respondent
Procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning a request by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (Defendant) to extend the time period for filing its rejoinder in infringement proceedings, reply to the defence to the counterclaim for revocation, and defence against the application to amend European patent EP 3 652 914. The court granted a two-week extension until 14 July 2025, citing the outbreak of hostilities affecting the Defendant's key technical employee based in Israel, but shortened the extension to 9 July 2025 in the event the Defendant files an application for access restrictions under R. 262A RoP.
Zentiva, k.s., Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 2 493 466. The defendants (Zentiva entities) filed an application under Rule 333 RoP seeking review of a procedural order dated 8 May 2025 regarding case management. The panel confirmed the original order with a minor correction (a typo in the rule citation) and dismissed all of Zentiva's requests.
Solectric GmbH, DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns a request by Defendants DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH to extend and harmonize the time periods for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action brought by Irdeto B.V. concerning EP 2 831 787. The Mannheim Local Division granted a partial extension, extending the deadlines for Defendants 3 and 4 until 14 August 2025 to achieve harmonization, but dismissed the request for a longer extension to 15 September 2025, finding the defendants had not sufficiently demonstrated the need for additional time.
Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, Easee Holding B.V. v.Respondent
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Easee B.V., ***, Easee Holding B.V. v.Visibly Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted suspensive effect to Easee's appeal against a Hamburg Local Division order requiring Easee to provide EUR 75,000 in security for costs related to a revocation counterclaim in a patent infringement action brought by Visibly Inc. concerning EP 3 918 974. The court found that the first instance order contained a manifest legal error, consistent with its prior ruling in AorticLab vs. Emboline, which established that Article 69(4) UPCA does not provide a legal basis for ordering security for costs at the request of a claimant in an infringement action, nor in response to a counterclaim for revocation. The managing director's application was granted outright, while the Easee companies' application was granted provisionally pending resolution of a competence issue regarding their legal representation following their insolvency.
Ballinno B.V. v.Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA)
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and the disposal of an action that had become devoid of purpose. Ballinno B.V., the proprietor of European patent EP 1 944 067 relating to a method and system for detecting an offside situation, had applied for provisional measures against the Kinexon companies and UEFA before the Hamburg Local Division. After withdrawing its requests for provisional measures on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the action had become devoid of purpose and disposed of it pursuant to R. 360 RoP, treating Ballinno as the unsuccessful party at both instances.
UPC Decision UPC-000601 v.Respondent
Before issuing a decision by default when the defendant did not even enter proceedings, factors other than the lack of opposition must be considered. Rule 355.2 RoP has a broader scope than Rule 171.2 RoP and must be interpreted in light of the front-loaded nature of UPC proceedings. This implies that, in a decision by default the Court is required to verify whether the claimant has put forward all elements in its possession to justify the legal relief sought. The
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) v.Aesculap AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, relating to a cutting tool of a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The presiding judge, acting as rapporteur, set out the intended feature breakdown (Merkmalsgliederung) of patent claim 1 to be used as the basis for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025. The order also referenced a Court of Appeal decision from April 30, 2025 (Insulet v. EOFlow) regarding the scope of information sought by the applicant.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited, Sumi Agro Limited v.Syngenta Limited
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal by Sumi Agro seeking revocation of provisional measures against it. The court held that court fees are considered paid on time if a transfer order is given to a bank at the time of lodging the relevant pleading, provided the payment is subsequently received in the Court's bank account. Applying this interpretation, the court found that Syngenta had timely started proceedings on the merits.
Plant-e Knowledge B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 137 782. Plant-e had initiated infringement proceedings against Arkyne before The Hague Local Division, and Arkyne had filed a counterclaim for revocation. After the Local Division found infringement and rejected the revocation counterclaim, Arkyne appealed. The parties subsequently reached a settlement and jointly requested the Court of Appeal to confirm the settlement, keep its contents confidential, and Arkyne additionally sought reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees.
AorticLab srl v.Emboline, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Munich Local Division that had required AorticLab to provide security for costs of €200,000 in an infringement action brought by Emboline concerning EP 2 129 425. The Court held that Article 69(4) UPCA deliberately restricts the right to request security for costs to defendants, and that this rationale does not extend to a claimant in an infringement action seeking security against a defendant who has filed a counterclaim for revocation.