European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 6 of 84 · 2,007 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V. and Apple Inc. (intervener)
This case concerns an appeal 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 lower court's orders, establishing a new confidentiality regime specifically for certain Confidential Licence Agreements, with access restricted to external representatives, expert witnesses, and one natural person from each party, subject to a five-year licensing bar. The Court also imposed a penalty of €1,000,000 for each culpable breach of the confidentiality order.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance granted Nordmeccanica S.p.A.'s application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited concerning EP 3067437 (titled 'improved vacuum coating method'). The court found that, since both parties (an Italian defendant and an English claimant) had no connection with German, and English was the predominant language in the relevant technology field, the position of the defendant was decisive in the balancing of interests, warranting a change to the language of the patent.
Decision of the President of the UPC Court of Appeal on Petition for Review of Registrar's Decision (EPLC Rules, Rule 12.1) v.Ex Parte
A European Patent Attorney applied on 29 August 2025 to be entered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989. The Registrar rejected the application as it was filed after the one-year transitional period under Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules, which expired on 3 June 2024. The President of the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's petition for review, holding that the one-year time limit is not discriminatory and that the applicant's qualification could not be deemed an appropriate qualification under Article 48(2) UPCA.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against the Sophia Genetics group, alleging infringement of four European patents relating to liquid biopsy technology by the 'MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHiA DDM' test. The Court rejected the application, finding that EP'073 contained added matter over its original PCT application, and that Guardant Health failed to demonstrate infringement of EP'066 and EP'986 with a sufficient degree of certainty. Guardant Health was ordered to pay Sophia Genetics 400,000 euros in interim costs.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH & Inverquark GmbH
This case concerns a request by the respondents (Inverquark entities) for a supplementary expert opinion and postponement of a decision on confidentiality interests in the context of an inspection and evidence preservation order related to European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the request for a supplementary expert opinion, finding no legal basis and that it would be inconsistent with the purpose of evidence preservation proceedings. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant since no confidentiality interests were asserted, and set a deadline for the applicant to file a main action.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an appeal by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against an order of the Central Division (Paris section). The Paris CD had granted a preliminary objection filed by four Bosch entities, transferring the infringement action concerning EP 2671766 to the Düsseldorf local division and setting English as the language of proceedings. The Court of Appeal's judge-rapporteur raised the question of the admissibility of Valeo's appeal and invited the Bosch respondents to submit comments within seven days on this issue.
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning an application under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action. The Pinterest defendants sought the change on grounds of fairness, arguing English was their common working language and the language of the patent. Nagravision opposed, citing its Swiss domicile and Pinterest's German market activity. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the proceedings to be conducted in English without specific translation arrangements.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4146335. The claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, requested withdrawal of the action pursuant to Rule 265.1 of the Rules of Procedure after reaching a settlement with the defendant. The defendant consented to the withdrawal, and the court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and found no need for a cost decision.
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
IMC Créations, a French company specializing in anti-theft systems for utility vehicles, brought an infringement action against Mul-T-Lock France concerning its MVP 1000 padlock, alleging infringement of European patent EP 4 153 830 (a unitary patent). Mul-T-Lock counterclaimed for nullity. The Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of claims 1 and 6 as modified, granted an injunction, ordered recall and destruction of infringing products, and ordered information disclosure, while rejecting claims relating to the Swiss part of the patent.
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
GC Aesthetics Parentco Limited & Others v.Establishment Labs S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerns a revocation action regarding EP 4185356. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce new auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted in exceptional circumstances and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court granted the claimant's application for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure after the claimant missed the deadline for filing a cost determination application under Rule 151. The underlying decision of October 10, 2025 had split costs 60/40 between claimant and defendant and partially revoked European Patent 3 215 288. The court held that while lack of legal knowledge generally does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, in this specific case the claimant's misjudgment of the legal situation could not be attributed to it despite legal representation. A dissenting opinion by Judge Brinkman argued the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible for lack of legal interest.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method') before the Central Division (Paris seat). The defendant failed to file a defence within the prescribed time limit and did not respond to the action in any way, prompting the claimant to request a decision by default. The court granted the default decision and partially revoked the patent with regard to the scope of claim 1, finding the grounds of invalidity (including lack of inventive step over the prior art) well founded, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted Juul Labs to withdraw its appeal against a first-instance decision revoking European Patent EP 3 498 115, following the dismissal of Juul Labs' appeal at the EPO Boards of Appeal. The Court ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 504 990. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently upheld that revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as the unsuccessful party, and ordered a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the rule applicable before the 1 January 2026 amendment.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.