European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 74 of 84 · 2,007 total
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
OCADO INNOVATION LIMITED v.AUTOSTORE AS
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.NanoString Technologies Inc.
Unified Patent Court decision.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
Unified Patent Court decision.
myStromer AG v.Revolt Zycling AG
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
ASTELLAS INSTITUTE FOR REGENERATIVE MEDICINE v.HEALIOS K.K, RIKEN, OSAKA UNIVERSITY
Unified Patent Court decision.
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. v.BHAGAT GROUP
Unified Patent Court decision.
OERLIKON TEXTILE GMBH & CO KG v.Himson Engineering Private Limited
Unified Patent Court decision.
OERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G v.HIMSON ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
Unified Patent Court decision.
Rematec GmbH & Co KG v.Europe Forestry B.V.
This order concerns an application by Rematec GmbH & Co KG, the appellant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 548 648, seeking referral of its cost decision application from the Court of Appeal to the Court of First Instance (Mannheim Local Division). The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction over cost decision applications, which must be filed before the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 150 et seq. RoP, and dismissed Rematec's application for referral.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH
The defendants in a UPC infringement action requested alignment of the deadline for filing their Statements of Defence, which had diverged by 20 days due to delayed service on the U.S. defendant. The claimant objected, citing the approaching expiry of the patent-in-suit in March 2027. The Local Division Hamburg granted the request, aligning all defendants' deadlines to 11 June 2026, holding that the claimant bore the risk of the deviating service dates because it delayed arranging payment for service in the U.S.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Procedural order of the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 3 909 047, addressing the Defendants' application under R. 262A RoP to protect confidential information. The court granted the application, classifying the Defendants' estimated gross profit figures for 2026 sales of the attacked embodiments in Germany and France as confidential trade secrets, and restricting access on the Claimant's side to specific named representatives and employees.
Illumina, Inc. v.Element Biosciences, Inc. and Others (EP3714978)
Illumina, Inc. brought a patent infringement action before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP3714978 against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. The Defendants sought dismissal under Rule 361 RoP, arguing the Statement of Claim manifestly lacked foundation because it omitted the 'fluidic device' feature of claim 1 from its feature breakdown, headings, and injunctive relief requests. The Court rejected the dismissal request, finding the omissions were clerical mistakes that did not render the action doomed to fail, and granted Illumina's request under Rule 9 RoP to file a corrected Statement of Claim.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants to suspend proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 (an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies). The court rejected the suspension request, holding that suspension under Rule 295 RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing, nor is it necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date. The court also admitted the plaintiff's late-filed auxiliary requests and appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems
This order concerns the defendant's second application to postpone an oral hearing scheduled for 8 December 2026 in proceedings involving EP 3 251 983. The defendant, ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Systems, sought postponement citing the unavailability of its managing director due to an internal company event. The Local Division Munich dismissed the application, finding no substantial grounds justifying a postponement, and declined to grant leave to appeal.
Laitram L.L.C. v.ScanBelt Modular Conveyor Syste
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendant's second request to postpone the oral hearing scheduled for December 8, 2026, in proceedings concerning EP 3 251 983. The defendant had failed to respond to the court's proposed dates within the set deadline and subsequently sought postponement citing the unavailability of its managing director. The court held that no substantial grounds justifying a postponement had been demonstrated and that alternative dates proposed earlier were no longer reserved for the proceedings.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities
This is a preliminary order from the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and several Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order summarizes a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026, addressing issues related to a patent pool (administered by Vectis), FRAND/Huawei v ZTE applicability, and Acer's potential counterclaim for rate setting against Vectis. The court ordered the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and directed Dolby to file a submission on 9 March 2026.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Jurisdiction concerns a request by the Respondents (multiple Robert Bosch entities) for simultaneous interpretation under R. 109 RoP for an appeal hearing scheduled for 27 April 2026. The Court rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and instead ordered that the hearing be conducted in English, finding that the Respondents' representative's lack of sufficient oral fluency in French did not constitute sufficient justification, and that all parties and the court had good command of both French and English.
Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS and Others
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) for an appeal hearing. The Appellant (Valeo) had filed a patent infringement action regarding EP 2 671 766, which the Court of First Instance (Central Division, Paris) transferred to the Düsseldorf local division with English as the language of procedure. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and ordered that the oral arguments at the April 27, 2026 hearing be conducted in English.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Others
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against five entities of the Dreame Group and its distributors, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235 (relating to a hair care appliance attachment) by the sale of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler.' The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against Defendants 1-4 for the territory of the UPCA Contracting Member States and Spain, but dismissed the application against Defendant 5 (Cellcom Ltd.) and regarding the UK/Northern Ireland territory. The court addressed key issues of international jurisdiction, the role of an EU Authorized Representative as a joint tortfeasor, and the apportionment of costs in split cost decisions.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addressed Microsoft's applications for a stay of proceedings and security for costs in appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_21/2026) concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The court held that under Art. 69(4) UPCA, only the respondent in appeal proceedings is entitled to request security for costs, and ordered Suinno to provide security of EUR 600,000 within three weeks, while rejecting Microsoft's requests for a stay of proceedings.