European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 55 of 92 · 2,185 total
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This case concerns an application by Sun Patent Trust for review of an order concerning interim measures against Roku, Inc. in proceedings involving European Patents EP 2 903 267 and EP 3 200 463. The dispute arose after Roku filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking, among other things, an anti-suit injunction against Sun Patent Trust. The court addressed key questions regarding cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, the necessity of prior cease-and-desist letters before seeking interim measures, and the circumstances under which such warnings are dispensable.
Discord Netherlands B.V. v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Mannheim Local Division concerning an infringement action regarding European patent EP 3 716 655. The defendants, Discord Inc. and Discord Netherlands B.V., belong to the same group of companies and requested harmonization of time periods for submitting their Statements of Defence and lodging any Counterclaim for Revocation, to which the claimant consented. The court granted the request, setting a uniform deadline of 2 July 2025 for both defendants.
Dolby International AB v.Roku, Inc.
This order concerns an application by Dolby International AB for review of a provisional measures order against Roku, Inc. in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The dispute arose after Roku filed a counterclaim for invalidity in the existing infringement proceedings and subsequently initiated a US lawsuit seeking, among other things, an injunction to prevent Dolby from pursuing the UPC action. The court addressed the question of cost allocation under Rule 360 RoP, holding that a prior warning (Abmahnung) is not a prerequisite for provisional measures but that its absence may affect cost allocation, particularly when the respondent immediately offers a cease-and-desist declaration.
3VSigma v.AGA-ACEF
Act. no. 18051/2025 UPC CFI no. 342/2025 1 di 20 ACT. NO. 18051/2025 UPC CFI NO. 342/2025 ORDER NO. 21737/2025 TRIBUNALE UNIFICATO DEI BREVETTI TRIBUNALE DI PRIMO GRADO DIVISIONE LOCALE DI MILANO ORDINE DI PROTEZIONE DELLE PROVE depositato il 19.5.2025 RICHIEDENTE 3
Greenchemicals S.R.L. v.DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.
This is a preliminary procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 1 957 544 B1, addressing the Applicant's request to classify certain financial information as confidential under R. 262A RoP. The court granted the confidentiality order, classifying specific financial information in the Applicant's comments and Exhibit HL 15 as confidential, while rejecting the Defendant's arguments that the information was publicly available. Access was limited to the Defendant's representatives and one named administrative employee, with penalties for culpable breach.
Belparts Group N.V. v.IMI Hydronic International SA, IMI Hydronic Engineering AB
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance scheduling proceedings in an infringement action concerning European patent no. 3 812 870. The panel decided not to bifurcate the proceedings and will hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation together, setting an interim videoconference for 24 March 2026 and an in-person oral hearing in Munich for 18 June 2026.
Maschio Gaspardo S.p.A. v.Spiridonakis Bros GP
Article 53(f) of the UPCA allows the Court to perceive the functionality of the embodiments (patented and attacked) and comprises all activities detailed in Articles 170(1)(c) and 170(2)(f) and (g) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore, not only inspections. According to Article 53(f) UPCA, the Court may compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality. If a party offers to exhibit the object in accordance with Rule 1
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action relating to European Patent No. EP 2 746 957. The Claimant, Total Semiconductor, LLC, applied under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its case to include the AM67x product as an additional attacked embodiment, arguing that the Defendants (Texas Instruments entities) had begun offering this new product in Germany after the original Statement of Claim was filed. The Defendants opposed the amendment, contending it could have been made earlier and would unfairly hinder their defence. The Court postponed the final decision on the amendment application until the oral hearing scheduled for 22 and 23 July 2025, while granting the Defendants the opportunity to respond to the amendments in substance.
Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH, Hisense Europe Holding GmbH v.Corning Incorporated
The Court of Appeal dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL, and LG against an order of the Mannheim Local Division refusing to separate infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 296 274. The defendants had sought separation to prevent the disclosure of sensitive supply chain information among competing companies, citing potential EU competition law conflicts. The Court of Appeal held that separation is not the only means to protect confidential information, as restricted access under R. 262A RoP and confidentiality agreements between parties are available alternatives.
Keysight Technologies, Inc., Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Centripetal Limited, for leave to amend its case pursuant to Rule 263 RoP in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 3 821 580. The Claimant sought leave to introduce new submissions regarding the alleged software solution 'Threat Simulator' and the alleged further gateway component 'ThreatARMOR' as additional attacked embodiments, arguing these were triggered by the Defendants' prior-use right defence. The Defendants (Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH) opposed the application, contending that leave was necessary and should not be granted because the Claimant should have included these submissions in its Statement of Claim given prior US proceedings.
TOTAL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. EP 2 746 957, in which the claimant Total Semiconductor, LLC sought permission to file a further written submission in response to the defendants' rejoinder. The defendants (Texas Instruments entities) opposed the request as an inadmissible repeat of a previously dismissed application. The court held the request admissible due to special circumstances, partially postponed the final decision on admission until the oral hearing, and otherwise rejected the request, granting the claimant two weeks to submit a written pleading strictly limited to the issue of Adaptive Voltage Scaling (AVS) Class 0.
MediaTek Germany GmbH v.Respondent
Huawei Technologies filed an infringement action against MediaTek, Inc. and MediaTek Germany GmbH concerning European Patent EP 3 905 840 B1. Huawei requested that certain information highlighted in grey in the statement of claim, along with related annexes marked as confidential, be classified as confidential under Article 58 of the EPG Agreement in conjunction with Rules 262.2 and 262A.1 of the Rules of Procedure. The Local Chamber Munich granted the request, ordering that the confidential information be protected from access by the opposing party and the public, and that the defendants not disclose such information to third parties or use it outside the proceedings.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG v.Respondent
This decision addresses cost assessment proceedings arising from a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The court examined the defendant's objection that the plaintiff's claimed recoverable representation costs were unreasonable in amount. The court established that a party challenging the reasonableness of costs must provide substantiated factual submissions explaining why the costs are disproportionate in relation to the matter's significance, complexity, and prospects of success.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. , Amgen GmbH, Amgen Europe B.V., Amgen NV, Amgen S.R.L., Amgen B.V., Amgen S.A.S.
1. In the case of a second medical use claim, a substance or composition within the mean- ing of Art. 54(4) EPC is used for any specific use which is not comprised in the state of the art. Such a therapeutic use can be a new indication, e.g. a disease not yet treated by the claimed substance, or an indication for a new group of patients. 2. For a finding of infringement of a second medical use claim, the alleged infringer must offer or place the medical product on the market in such way
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak GmbH v.Respondent
This order concerns an application by the Defendants (Kodak entities) for rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a decision dated 2 April 2025 in patent infringement and revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 476 616. The Defendants sought to rectify the value in dispute from EUR 15,000,000 to EUR 15,000,000 each for the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (totaling EUR 30,000,000), and alternatively to raise the ceiling for recoverable costs. The Mannheim Local Division dismissed the application, finding no deviation between the panel's intention and the wording of the decision.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for security for costs and an order on provisional measures brought by Ballinno B.V. against the Kinexon companies and UEFA in relation to EP 1 944 067. The appellant had built its case for provisional measures primarily around a major sports event, but subsequently withdrew its requests for provisional measures before the Court of First Instance issued its order, rendering the action devoid of purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was admissible and that Ballinno, having taken the inherent risk of its procedural strategy, must be considered the unsuccessful party and bear the costs under Article 69(1) UPCA.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
1. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg RoP, il tetto massimo dei costi di difesa rimborsabili a favore della parte a cui tale diritto è stato riconosciuto da una decisione di merito, in ossequio al principio di proporzionalità, può essere raggiunto solo in situazioni limitate, ad esempio per la complessità delle questioni trattate, per il numero di brevetti esaminati, per le parti coinvolte o per l’uso di più lingue. 2. Nel procedimento disciplinato dalle rule 150 e segg Ro
Astronergy Europe GmbH, Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., Chint Solar Netherlands B.V., Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a cost order under Rule 333 RoP. The Defendants sought review of the judge-rapporteur's order dated 2 April 2025, which had dismissed their application to require the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs. The Defendants argued that the Local Division Munich reached the opposite conclusion in a parallel proceeding between the same parties, and that UPC decisions, like German court decisions, cannot be enforced in China, justifying a security for costs order. The Claimant defended the original order, contending the Court applied the correct legal standard.
ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Netherlands B.V., ZTE France SASU v.Respondent
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd filed an infringement action against three ZTE group entities (ZTE Deutschland GmbH, ZTE France SASU, and ZTE Netherlands B.V.) concerning European patent EP 4 050 804 before the Mannheim Local Division. The defendants, all part of the same group and uniformly represented, requested harmonization of the time periods for filing Statements of Defence and Counterclaims for revocation, which had become staggered due to different service dates. With the claimant's consent, the court ordered a uniform deadline of 3 July 2025 for all three defendants.
STADA Nordic ApS v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions related to European Patent No. 2 493 466, which covers cabazitaxel compounds for treating prostate cancer. The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, have brought infringement actions against several groups of defendants including Accord Healthcare, STADA, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities across multiple UPC member states. The judge-rapporteur issued orders regarding the procedural schedule, including deadlines for rejoinders, closure of written procedure, interim conferences, and the oral hearing.
ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDA v.BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH sought a preliminary injunction before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Zentiva Portugal, Lda, alleging imminent infringement of European Patent EP 1 830 843 B1, which protects the use of nintedanib for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The Court rejected the application, finding that Boehringer failed to demonstrate imminent infringement arising directly from Zentiva's conduct, particularly given that the Portuguese Intellectual Property Court had already granted a preliminary injunction in parallel proceedings. The Applicants were ordered to pay the Defendant interim costs of EUR 92,944.15.
Sanofi B.V., Sanofi A/S, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi AB, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi Mature IP v.Accord Healthcare GmbH, Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare AB
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Court of First Instance concerning patent infringement actions involving European Patent No. 2 493 466 (relating to cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer). The claimants, multiple Sanofi entities, sought cease and desist orders against defendants (Accord Healthcare, STADAPHARM, Reddy Pharma, and Zentiva entities) for their sales of CABAZITAXEL ACCORD in various UPC Member States. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending the EPO Board of Appeal decision and filed revocation counterclaims. The judge-rapporteur declined to stay the proceedings and set out the further procedural timetable.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem Holding ApS, ***, HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS
An appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the language of proceedings. The appellant, Hybridgenerator ApS, appealed an order of the Copenhagen Local Division that declined to order the respondents to pay periodic penalty payments for failure to comply with an earlier order. With the agreement of both parties, the Court of Appeal changed the language of the appeal proceedings from Danish to English, finding that the change would shorten the timeframe for adjudication without causing disadvantage to the parties.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1 ('Kreiselpumpenaggregat' / centrifugal pump assembly). The plaintiff Grundfos Holding A/S (Denmark) sued the defendant Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd. (China) for infringement of the German, French, and Italian parts of the patent. The decision addresses procedural questions regarding the admissibility of new prior art and new attacks on novelty and inventive step introduced by the defendant in its reply to the counterclaim for revocation.