European UPC IP Litigation
1,878 annotated decisions
Page 6 of 79 · 1,878 total
Düsseldorf, insbesondere Rechtsanwalt Oliver v.Respondent
This case concerns renewed coercive measures against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1, which relates to water filter devices with cartridges. Despite prior penalty orders, the defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure of sales information and allegedly continued to advertise the infringing products on websites targeting European markets. The Local Division Hamburg found the claimant's application for further penalties successful.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_B850B9DE31, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States appeared in dispute with Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Clemens Tobias Steins, Patentanwalt und Eur v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dirk Jestaedt, Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mb
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. Before the written procedure was completed, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, following out-of-court settlement discussions. The court allowed the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute from EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 9,500.00.
1) Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., No. 26 Xianghai Road, Yangkou, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, CN v.& Bird, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before The Hague Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-14) under reference UPC_CFFF9CFE8F, 1) Xingi Technology CO.,Ltd., No. 26 Xianghai Road, Yangkou, Nantong City, Jiangsu Province, CN appeared in dispute with & Bird, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Lagoas Park, Edifício 4, Piso 0, 2740-267 Porto Salvo, Portu
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
TIRU v.Veolia Propreté, Maguin SAS, and Valinea Energie
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted TIRU's request to withdraw its three appeals (PR-UPC-CoA-79/2026, PR-UPC-CoA-80/2026, and PR-UPC-CoA-81/2026) against the decision of the Central Division (Paris section) of 18 March 2026 concerning the validity of EP 3 178 578. The Court ordered a 50% reimbursement of the procedural fees paid by TIRU, amounting to €14,600, in accordance with Rule 370.9(b) RdP, rejecting TIRU's request for full reimbursement.
Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Respondent
In this legal proceeding before Mannheim Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-13) under reference UPC_BECF20770B, Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan appeared in dispute with Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
The plaintiffs, four InterDigital entities, withdrew their lawsuit against five Amazon entities with the defendants' consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the refund of 50% of the court fees (€7,500) to the plaintiffs. No cost applications were made or pending.
fiskaly GmbH, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer Johannes v.Respondent
This case concerns European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 and involves a dispute over confidentiality and access to an expert's findings following an inspection and evidence preservation order. The applicant, fiskaly GmbH, sought access to the summary infringement result from the expert Grannemann's detailed description, arguing it contained no trade secrets and that the information asymmetry hindered proper case management. The respondents, SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, opposed the request, arguing that if the underlying inspection order were found unlawful, all evidence obtained would be inadmissible, and therefore no information should be disclosed until the lawfulness of the order was determined.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL), Versaevel and others (Winston v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.,, Universal Industrial Centre,
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.Keeex SAS (Discretionary Review of UPC_CFI_530/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated June 1, 2026. The underlying dispute concerned Keeex SAS's patent infringement action regarding EP 2 949 070, in which Keeex introduced a claim for provisional damages of €120 million in its Reply brief. The Court of Appeal found that the Local Division's decision was not manifestly
Ltd. 13 Zahrin Street 4366241 Ra’anana – Israel v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd., HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
Cardo Systems Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, sought a decision by default against Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co. Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co. Limited for infringement of its patent through the sale of Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. The defendants failed to enter an appearance or file any defence despite valid service, and the three-month period under Rule 23 RoP had expired. The Court granted the default judgment, finding that the defendants' deliberate copying of the patent and continued infringement demonstrated awareness, warranting damages under Article 68(1) UPCA.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance (Milan Central Division) addressed a cost decision following revocation proceedings concerning European Patent No. EP3854403, owned by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS). Gilead Sciences, Inc., as the successful party in the revocation proceedings, sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal. The Court rejected AMMS's requests for a stay and for payment by instalments, ordering AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks of service.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA, v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH,
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo v.DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Milan Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-09) under reference UPC_2B046F0581, PRIMETALS TECHNOLOGIES AUSTRIA GMBH, Andreas Haberl, Preu Bohlig & Partner Rechtsanwälte mbB, Leo appeared in dispute with DANIELI & C. S.P.A., LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., who had intervened in support of the claimant Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP3079153. The panel denied the review, holding that under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may therefore be the target of a counterclaim, particularly given the principle of equal treatment. The panel further noted that the Court could rely on Rule 305 RoP to add Vectis as a proper party if necessary, and that the substantive objections raised by Dolby and Vectis (lack of standing, no dominant market position, no FRAND declaration) were matters of substance rather than admissibility.
Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P v.Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C
In this legal proceeding before UPC Court (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_C3ABF2C8EE, Daejeon 305-350, South Korea, Attorneys at Law Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Lea Prehn, Dr. Lisa P appeared in dispute with Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Way, Menlo Park, California 94025, Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC., 1 Meta Way, Menlo Park, C concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3079153. The panel denied the review sought by the claimant Dolby and the intervener Vectis, confirming that the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible. The panel further held that, in the alternative, Vectis would be added as a proper party, and rejected the request for an extended deadline as moot.
AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland v.TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu
In this legal proceeding before Helsinki Local Division (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_4905557A3F, AIM SPORT DEVELOPMENT AG, Luzern, Switzerland appeared in dispute with TGI SPORT FRANCE SASU (previously SUPPONOR SASU), Biot, Fran, TGI SPORT ITALIA S.R.L. (previously SUPPONOR ITALIA SRL), Bu concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 v.Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_A4239A3062, Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 appeared in dispute with Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, Thomas Misgaiski, Lea Prehn, Dr. Marie v.1) Sercomm Corporation, 2) SerComm Deutschland GmbH
Huawei Technologies filed a patent infringement action against four Sercomm entities (based in Taiwan, Germany, France, and Italy) concerning European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei describes as essential for WiFi6. The plaintiff alleges indirect infringement of claims 1–6 and direct infringement of claims 7–12, and licenses the patent both bilaterally and through the SISVEL pool. Following an early interim hearing held by video conference on July 8, 2026, the presiding judge issued a procedural order scheduling a further interim hearing for April 16, 2027 and an oral hearing for May 5, 2027, while reserving the possibility of separating the proceedings against the differently served defendants.
Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, v.Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-07) under reference UPC_C777A2BE0D, Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, appeared in dispute with Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA v.Polidoro S.p.a.
In this legal proceeding before Luxembourg (LU) (decision issued on 2026-07-06) under reference UPC_4F034E8470, Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V., NV Bekaert SA appeared in dispute with Polidoro S.p.a. concerning patent rights and legal remedies.