European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 52 of 92 · 2,185 total
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim involving EP 3 905 730. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Defendant 1 and FRAND Counter-Claimant) had stated the value in dispute of its FRAND counterclaim at 4 Mio €, but the court found this largely underestimated since a FRAND license does not relate solely to the patent-in-suit. The court set the value of the overall proceedings on a preliminary basis and ordered Samsung to pay an additional advance on fees, while allowing the parties to comment on the value in dispute until 21 July 2025.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Respondent
This case concerns Ericsson's application for panel review of a decision by the Judge Rapporteur rejecting its request for an 'external eyes only' confidentiality regime to protect sensitive licensing information submitted in connection with a patent infringement action involving EP 2727242. The Milan Local Division Panel dismissed the application, finding that Ericsson failed to provide concrete factual evidence demonstrating an actual risk of antitrust violations from disclosure to a single Asustek employee. However, the Panel granted Ericsson leave to appeal in order to allow the Court of Appeal to set a standard on this issue.
Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Digital River Ireland, Ltd. v.Headwater Research LLC
This decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Court of First Instance concerns an infringement action brought by Headwater Research LLC against several Motorola entities and Flextronics International Europe B.V. regarding European Patent EP 3 110 069. The ruling addresses procedural objections raised under Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure, clarifying that a plaintiff may rely on additional jurisdictional bases beyond those initially cited in the statement of claim or in response to an objection. The Court further clarified the scope of Art. 33(1)(b) sentence 2 of the EPG Agreement, holding that it does not refer to Art. 33(1)(a) and does not impose special requirements for unified actions against multiple defendants who have all committed infringing acts or are domiciled in the relevant contracting member state.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v.Respondent
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 concerning treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, applied for a rehearing of the Court of Appeal's order dismissing its appeal against the Hamburg Local Division's refusal of provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis. Alexion alleged fundamental procedural defects, claiming the Court of Appeal applied a new claim interpretation standard without giving it an opportunity to be heard and based its decision on incorrect facts. The Court of Appeal rejected the application as not allowable, holding that a rehearing is an extraordinary remedy requiring a defect so fundamental that the same decision could not have been reached without it, and that mere disagreement with the court's reasoning does not constitute such a defect.
GISELA MAYER GmbH v.Respondent
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_363/2024 Ordonnance de procédure du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 19/06/2025 REQUERANT – DEFENDEUR AU PRINCIPAL GISELA MAYER GmbH Litzelsdorfer Straße 3 87700 Memmingen DE Représenté par Frédéric PORTAL REPONDANT – DEM
The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. v.Respondent
This case concerns a procedural application filed by The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. requesting a change of the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS based on European patent EP2080349. The President of the Court of First Instance addressed the admissibility of the application under Rule 323 RoP and Article 49(5) UPCA. The ruling established that the position of all parties potentially affected by a requested language change must be heard before any decision is rendered under Rule 323 RoP.
F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Roche Diabetes Care GmbH v.Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, brought the action against multiple defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The order addresses Defendant 6 (Rubin Medical ApS)'s application for the protection of trade secrets and other confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure, which the court found to be admissible and substantively successful.
ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft, Industria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an appeal filed by ILME against a decision of the Local Division Munich that had rejected ILME's objection under R. 19.1(a) RoP in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 602 692. Following an out-of-court settlement between the parties, the Local Division Munich allowed the withdrawal of the main infringement action on June 5, 2025. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot under R. 360 RoP, finding that ILME no longer had any legal interest in a decision on the appeal.
Knaus Tabbert AG v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal, dated June 17, 2025, addresses an objection (Gegenvorstellung) filed by Knaus Tabbert AG against the rejection of its request for suspensive effect under Rule 223 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute concerns alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 356 109, which relates to a frame for a vehicle with at least one structural part made of foam resin. The Court of Appeal held that an objection that merely challenges the reasoning expressed in the rejecting order, without raising new substantive grounds, is inadmissible.
Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.SCHNELL S.p.A., AWM s.r.l.
This is a procedural order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division following an online interim conference held on 5 June 2025 in proceedings between Progress Maschinen & Automation AG (claimant) and AWM s.r.l. and Schnell S.p.A. (defendants). The order addresses several procedural matters, including the admissibility of a new version of auxiliary request AR4, which was referred to the Panel for assessment at the oral hearing. The parties were also granted a fifteen-day period to negotiate the value of the infringement action, the value of the counterclaim for revocation, and the amount of recoverable costs.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience, Inc
10x Genomics, Inc. sued Curio Bioscience Inc. for infringement of European Patent EP 2 697 391 B1, which relates to methods and products for localised or spatial detection of nucleic acids in tissue samples. The dispute concerned Curio's 'Curio Seeker Spatial Mapping KIT,' a slide-based product with spatially indexed beads used for spatial transcriptomics. The Düsseldorf Local Division found partial infringement, issuing injunctive relief, ordering information/accounting, and awarding damages, with costs split 30% to the Claimant and 70% to the Defendant.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a joint request by the parties to stay infringement and revocation proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 742 231 in order to facilitate settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the EPO Board of Appeal in the parallel opposition appeal (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the previously scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics GmbH a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 110 069 B1. The Court held that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the applicable foreign law and its application to demonstrate that enforcement of a potential cost order against the US-based Claimant would be unduly burdensome, and also failed to establish any tangible risk of insolvency.
Corning Incorporated v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
ModernaTX, Inc., Moderna Norway AS, Moderna Belgium S.R.L., Moderna Italy S.R.L., Moderna France SASU, Moderna Biotech UK Limited, Moderna Switzerland GmbH, Moderna Poland SP. Z.O.O., Moderna Portugal Unipessoal LDA, Moderna Sweden AB, Moderna, Inc., v.Respondent
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC_CFI_191/2025 and 192/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 12/06/2025 APPLICANT/S – DEFENDANTS IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGSIN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Moderna, Inc. (Applicant) - 325 Binney Street - M
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The respondent requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing from German into English and permission to attend the hearing via video conference. The applicant opposed the interpretation request but did not object to the respondent arranging an interpreter at their own cost, and consented to video conference participation by the respondent's representatives.
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB v.Respondent
1 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court Central Division (Paris Seat) issued on 9 June 2025 APPLICANT Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB Widenmayerstr. 47, 80538 München, Germany represented by Moritz-Melchior Bloser PART
Tiroler Rohre GmbH v.SSAB Europe Oy, SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned an infringement action by Tiroler Rohre GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 839 083 B9, against SSAB Swedish Steel GmbH and SSAB Europe Oy regarding pile driving tips (Rammspitzen) for tubular piles. The defendants sold competing pile tips under the designations GS115, GS140, and GS170. The defendants raised a counterclaim for revocation and filed an appeal. The court addressed the burden of proof regarding infringement arguments based on circumstances outside the patent claim, holding that the defendant bears the burden of proof for such arguments and that the infringement plaintiff is not required to present arguments about components outside the patent claim under Art. 54 EPGÜ.
Sunstar Engineering Europe GmbH v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning European patent EP 4 108 413 in a patent infringement action. The Claimant sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its damages claim to include profits from sales of CeraPUR sealing materials and service/maintenance contracts related to the allegedly infringing CeraFLOW machines. The court held that the original request IV. already encompassed all damages from the alleged infringing acts and permitted the clarifying amendment without needing a R. 263 RoP application, while postponing the remaining aspects of the amendment request until after the oral hearing.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed NUC Electronics' application for suspensive effect of its appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division finding infringement of EP 2 028 981. The Court held that NUC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspension, particularly given that the information disclosure order under Art. 67 UPCA is a measure necessary to ensure a high level of IP protection and is subject to use restrictions already imposed by the first instance.
Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow Netherlands B.V., Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd v.SES-imagotag SA
This decision of the Court of Appeal addressed a late application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Hanshow following interim measures proceedings against VusionGroup concerning EP 3 883 277. The court clarified that the one-month deadline under Rule 151.1 RoP begins with service of the substantive decision, not with service of an interim measures order, and that failure to meet this deadline can only be remedied by reinstatement under Rule 320 RoP. The appeal was dismissed, and Hanshow was ordered to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings, except for the court fee.
CeraCon GmbH v.Respondent
CeraCon GmbH, the defendant in infringement proceedings and claimant in a counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 4 108 413, sought leave under R. 263 RoP to amend its counterclaim by introducing a new novelty attack based on prior art document EP 3 868 480 A1 (WO 2021/131055). The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, holding that R. 263 RoP applies in full to counterclaims for revocation and that granting leave where a simple prior art search could have revealed the document would effectively allow any later-discovered document to be introduced.