European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 62 of 92 · 2,185 total
Daedalus Prime LLC v.MediaTek Inc. (Headquarters)
This procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg addressed a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP concerning international jurisdiction. The claimant, Daedalus Prime LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 792 100, sought an injunction against Xiaomi entities and MediaTek Inc. for alleged infringement relating to Xiaomi smartphones equipped with MediaTek Dimensity processors. The court examined the interplay between Art. 31 UPCA and the Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly Art. 71b(2) and Art. 7(2), to determine whether the UPC has international jurisdiction over defendants domiciled outside the EU for patent infringements committed in UPC Member States.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Gmbh v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 646 825, the Local Division Munich addressed competing applications for protection of confidential information filed by Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Meril in connection with Edwards' cost application. The court distinguished between Rule 262A RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis parties) and Rule 262.2 RoP (restriction of access vis-à-vis the public and third parties), ultimately granting Edwards protection under Rule 262.2 RoP while rejecting the Rule 262A RoP requests of both parties.
Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc, Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V., Rubin Medical ApS, c/o Diatom A/S v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1. The plaintiffs, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, filed a patent infringement action against six defendants including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. Defendants 4 (Dinno Santé s.a.i., France) and 5 (Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V., Netherlands) requested simultaneous interpretation of the oral hearing scheduled for April 9, 2025, citing insufficient German language skills of their attending representatives.
Microsoft Corporation v.Respondent
Microsoft Corporation filed a procedural application seeking rejection of Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy's infringement action as manifestly inadmissible, arguing that Suinno's appointed representative was ineligible because he held extensive administrative and financial powers within the company. The Court considered a prior Court of Appeal order confirming that natural persons with extensive administrative and financial powers within a legal person cannot serve as its representative before the UPC. The Court held that the lack of valid representation does not lead to inadmissibility of the action, but rather requires granting the affected party an opportunity to remedy the representation deficit.
Syngenta Limited v.Respondent
This case concerns an application by Sumi Agro to revoke provisional measures previously granted in favor of Syngenta Limited regarding European patent EP 2 152 073. The dispute centered on whether Syngenta had timely 'started proceedings on the merits' within the deadline set under Rule 213.1 RoP, given that the Statement of Claim was uploaded to the CMS on 27 September 2024 but the court fee was received on 30 September 2024. The Local Division Munich upheld the judge-rapporteur's dismissal of Sumi Agro's application, finding that Syngenta had started proceedings in due time, and granted leave to appeal.
President and Fellows of Harvard College v.Respondent
The Court of Appeal issued an order regarding applications for reimbursement of court fees in three appeal proceedings related to European Patent EP 4108782. Following the permitted withdrawal of the appeals against three contested orders of the Court of First Instance (Local Division Hamburg), 10x Genomics and Harvard College applied for partial reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal granted the applications, ordering 60% reimbursement for one appeal withdrawn before completion of written proceedings and 20% reimbursement for two appeals withdrawn before completion of oral proceedings, finding that the requirements of Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure were met.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim. The panel decided to separate the proceedings with respect to national parts of the traditional European bundle patent that were not yet ready for decision, particularly those concerning non-UPC countries (Poland, Spain, Turkey, and the United Kingdom), pending the European Court of Justice's decision in Case C-339/22 (BSH Hausgeräte) on international jurisdiction under the Brussels Ia Regulation. The court reasoned that withholding a decision on the merits for national parts over which it had jurisdiction would unjustifiably delay enforcement of the claimant's potential patent rights.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH, WARMCOOK
This case concerns a patent infringement action brought by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Europe GmbH and WARMCOOK regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 B1. The Local Division Mannheim addressed the question of which substantive law applies to alleged infringing acts of traditional European bundle patents in relation to the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The court held that the UPCA substantive law applies to acts committed after 1 June 2023 and to ongoing acts that continued after that date, while substantive national laws apply to acts committed before that date. The court also ruled that the right to information under the UPCA encompasses time periods predating the entry into force of the UPCA.
BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH , Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV , Pfizer SAS, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH , Pfizer AB , BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH , BioNTech Europe GmbH , Pfizer, Inc. , BioNTech SE v.Promosome LLC
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The Court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd, CUPOWER Europe GmbH
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 011 218 B1 relating to a Boost Power Factor Correction (Boost-PFC) circuit, with claims 7 to 10 at issue. The plaintiff Tridonic GmbH & Co. KG brought an infringement action against CUPOWER Shenzhen Xiezhen Electronics Co., Ltd. and CUPOWER Europe GmbH, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court rejected new attacks on the validity of the patent that were raised for the first time during the oral hearing, holding that strategic tactics aimed at surprise effects are foreign to the Rules of Procedure.
President and Fellows of Harvard College, 10x Genomics, Inc. v.Respondent
This order concerns three appeals filed by 10x Genomics and Harvard College against orders of the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings against Vizgen concerning EP 4108782. The Court of First Instance had partially granted Vizgen's three requests under Rule 190.1 of the Rules of Procedure for the production of documents. 10x filed appeals against those orders but subsequently applied for withdrawal of all three appeals, to which Vizgen consented. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals and noted that no cost decision was necessary since both parties had waived cost claims.
Sumi Agro Europe Limited v.Syngenta Limited
This appeal concerned provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 2 152 073 relating to herbicidal compositions. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court largely upheld the Munich Local Division's order finding that Sumi Agro's 'Kagura' herbicide more likely than not infringed the patent, while adding Romania to the territorial scope and reversing the cost decision to order Sumi Agro to bear Syngenta's costs.
Brodrene Hartmann A/S v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns European Patent EP 2 755 901 B1 and addresses applications by both parties for leave to exchange further pleadings under Rule 36 RoP in infringement proceedings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf denied the applications, finding that the plaintiff had failed to file a proper Rule 36 application and instead improperly introduced new arguments on equivalent patent infringement in its rejoinder to the counterclaim for revocation. The court held that the decision to allow further pleadings lies in the discretion of the Rapporteur and requires substantial reasons given the goal of conducting oral hearings within one year of filing.
Pfizer SA, Pfizer Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Laboratórios Pfizer, Lda., Pfizer Pharma GmbH, Pfizer Aps, Pfizer B.V., Pfizer S.r.l., Pfizer Oy, Pfizer Corporation Austria GmbH, Pfizer Service Company S.r.l., Pfizer AB, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfize v.Respondent
This procedural order concerns a patent infringement action filed by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer entities regarding EP 4 183 412. The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division and decided to proceed with the infringement action rather than stay it. The court also granted a one-month extension for the Defendants to file their Rejoinder, extending the deadline to 13 April 2025.
Headwater Research LLC v.Samsung Electronics France S.A.S, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court following an Interim Conference in proceedings concerning European Patent No. 2 391 947. The order addresses various procedural matters including the value of the claim and counterclaim, parallel proceedings, formal pleading deficiencies, late-filed documents, and arrangements for the upcoming oral hearing. The Court confirmed the oral hearing date of 20 May 2025 and set the value of the infringement claim at €2 million and the counterclaim for revocation at €3 million.
Curio Bioscience, Inc v.10x Genomics, Inc.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal. Curio Bioscience, Inc. had appealed an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division requiring it to provide security for legal costs of EUR 200,000 in favor of 10x Genomics, Inc. in connection with a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 697 391. Curio subsequently applied to withdraw its appeal, and 10x did not object, leading the Court of Appeal to permit the withdrawal and close the proceedings.
Applicant v.Defendant
1 Local Division Mannheim UPC_CFI_142/2025 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 3 March 2025 Applicant […] represented by: […] electronic address for service: […] Defendant […] PATENT AT ISSUE: […] PANEL/DIVISION: Lo
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
This order was issued by the Court of First Instance in infringement proceedings concerning European patent EP 2 671 173, following a Court of Appeal determination that the claimant's appointed representative could not validly serve as a representative of the legal person due to holding extensive administrative and financial powers. The judge-rapporteur invited written submissions from the parties on the consequences of this inability to serve. The claimant requested that the representative be allowed to continue or, alternatively, be given time to correct the representation configuration, while the defendant sought rejection of the action as manifestly inadmissible and a default decision revoking the patent in the counterclaim proceedings.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS, ***
This case concerns European Patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and involves a dispute over the release of evidence-secured CAD files to the applicant and the collection of penalty payments. The applicant, Hybridgenerator ApS, had obtained an evidence preservation order from the Local Division in Copenhagen on August 26, 2024, which was executed by the bailiff court in Svendborg on August 30, 2024. However, the evidence preservation was not completed because the respondents refused to provide usernames and passwords to their cloud-based economic system (e-conomics) and email, in violation of the Court's order.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.Juul Labs International Inc.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. brought a revocation action against Juul Labs International, Inc. seeking revocation of European Patent No. EP 3 504 989. Juul Labs filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's competence based on alleged misidentification, which was rejected and confirmed on appeal. Juul Labs also filed an application to amend the patent and pursued 8 auxiliary requests. The oral hearing was held on 21 November 2024, and the Court delivered its decision on 28 February 2025.
International N&H Denmark ApS, Virdia Inc. v.Respondent
This is a revocation action before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) concerning European Patent EP 2 611 800. The originally-named defendant, Virdia Inc., applied to substitute itself with International N&H Denmark ApS, to whom the patent had been assigned in 2024. The claimant agreed to the substitution, and the court granted the application, ordering that International N&H Denmark ApS replace Virdia Inc. as defendant and be bound by the proceedings as constituted.
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH v.Respondent
The Claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, sought leave under Rule 263 of the Rules of Procedure to amend its infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 742 231 by adding the Netherlands to the list of countries for which infringement was asserted and an injunction sought. The court rejected the application, finding that the Claimant failed to demonstrate that the amendment could not have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage, as required by Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. v.Respondent
SharkNinja Italy S.R.L. filed a revocation action against Dyson Technology Limited's European Patent EP 2043492 before the Central Division Milan. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement and signed a term sheet, prompting the claimant to request withdrawal of the revocation action and closure of proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (EUR 12,000) to the claimant.
Fapa Vital AG v.Respondent
Fapa Vital AG filed an application for provisional measures against Valentis Baltic UAB concerning EP 1 978 949 before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court. After the parties reached a settlement, the Applicant withdrew the application and requested reimbursement of 60% of the Court fees. The Court declared the proceedings closed and ordered reimbursement of EUR 6,600 (60% of the EUR 11,000 total Court fees), applying Rule 370.9(b) RoP by analogy to the withdrawal of an application for provisional measures.