European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 75 of 84 · 2,007 total
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd & Orope Germany GmbH v.Koninklijke KPN N.V. (UPC_CFI_249/2026)
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd and Orope Germany GmbH based on EP 3349412. The defendants requested a change of the language of proceedings from German to English, to which the claimant agreed. The President of the Court of First Instance ordered the change of language to English and set a deadline of 24 April 2026 for the claimant to provide English translations of the Statement of Claim and Annexes K10 and K17.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) & Others
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. The Defendants requested alignment of deadlines for filing their Preliminary Objection, Statements of Defence, and Counterclaim for Revocation, citing that only three of the four Defendants had been effectively served. The Court granted the request, finding the alignment reasonable and conducive to procedural efficiency.
WIRPLAST – Więcek Spółka Jawna v.VILPE Oy
WIRPLAST brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate VILPE Oy's European Patent EP 2 649 380 B1, which claims an exhaust ventilation pipe with a circular spirit level integrated on top of a conical cup in the pipe's hat. WIRPLAST argued the patent lacked an inventive step over four prior art documents. The Court dismissed the revocation action, holding that the closest prior art (D1, a roof fan) related to a different kind of device and solved a different problem, and that none of the prior art combinations rendered the claimed invention obvious.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH (Cost Assessment – UPC_CFI_1477/2025)
This is a cost assessment decision by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning the appeal proceedings in a patent dispute over European Patent EP 3 223 320 B1. The defendants sought €101,067.47 in costs from Seoul Viosys, relying partly on a first-instance cost agreement. The court held that the first-instance agreement did not extend to the appeal proceedings and awarded only the actually incurred and reasonable costs, totaling €50,450.52.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v.TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Division The Hague of the Unified Patent Court in infringement proceedings brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against multiple TCL entities concerning European patents EP3103116 and EP2420029. The order addresses competing confidentiality applications under Rules 262 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure and Philips's application for the production of licence agreements. The court established detailed confidentiality regimes for both parties' confidential information and ordered the production of relevant licence agreements, while also making case management directions regarding the hearing of both the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited brought a revocation action against Flexicare (Group) Limited concerning European Patent EP 4 185 356, which relates to a nasal cannula with a swivel connection. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) held that claim 1 as granted and its dependent claims lack novelty over prior art document D2, and that auxiliary request 1 also lacks novelty over D2 while auxiliary requests 2 to 13 lack clarity. The patent was revoked in its entirety, the application to amend was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs.
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v.expert e-Commerce GmbH & expert klein GmbH (Cost Decision Proceedings concerning EP 3 926 698 B1)
This is a cost decision (Kostenfestsetzungsentscheidung) by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 926 698 B1. Following the Court of Appeal's reversal of the first-instance decision—which had found infringement and dismissed the revocation counterclaim—the defendants sought reimbursement of costs already paid under the original cost decision, as well as costs for both instances. The court held that when a cost decision is issued before appeal proceedings conclude and the original cost liability decision is subsequently amended, the original cost decision loses its basis, and amounts already reimbursed are recoverable in subsequent cost proceedings.
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v.Zentiva Portugal, Lda
Boehringer Ingelheim filed an infringement action on the merits against Zentiva Portugal concerning European Patent EP1830843 (relating to nintedanib for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis), following the grant of provisional measures by the Court of Appeal. After the patent expired on 21 December 2025, Boehringer requested disposal of the action under R. 360 RoP as devoid of purpose. The Court of First Instance (Lisbon Local Division) granted the request, finding the action moot, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
Procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning EP2345029. Orange SA sought to have certain arguments in HMD Global Oy's Rejoinder Part II declared inadmissible as late filed, or alternatively to be permitted to respond to them. The court allowed Orange to submit its written response on the FRAND defence and denied HMD's subsidiary request to be allowed to respond further.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
SharkNinja Operating LLC filed an application for provisional measures before the Paris Local Division against several SEB group entities, alleging infringement of European patents EP 3 689 198 and EP 3 689 201 by SEB's newly launched 'Cookeo Infinity' range of cooking devices. SharkNinja subsequently withdrew its request regarding EP 201. The Court dismissed the remaining application for provisional measures concerning EP 198, finding that the patent was likely invalid for lack of novelty based on implicit disclosure in prior art, and ordered SharkNinja to pay SEB an interim award of costs of EUR 120,000.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Procedural order issued by the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) following an interim conference in proceedings concerning European Patent EP2061230 owned by Maxell, Ltd. The order addresses case management matters including the value of the proceedings, clarifications of parties' requests, objections to new submissions, confidentiality, scheduling of further submissions on invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and arrangements for the oral hearing.
Umicore N.V./S.A. v.Elemental Benelux B.V. and Others
Procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerning confidentiality in a patent infringement action involving Umicore's European Patent EP4087952 against multiple Elemental group entities. The court granted the defendants' request to classify certain technical information in their Statement of Defence and Exhibit ES5 as confidential, but expanded access on Umicore's side to include additional natural persons and technical experts due to a prior wider NDA. The court also ruled that Umicore's deadlines for filing its reply would start from the date it receives the full unredacted Statement of Defence.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. and Others
An infringement action before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) concerning EP3944587, brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., Orope Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, and Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. The parties jointly requested an order regarding the exchange of licences and the establishment of a confidentiality club. The Court granted the joint request, ordering KPN to disclose its smartphone manufacturer licences and related agreements to the Defendants' counsel and external experts, subject to a confidentiality regime mirroring that agreed in parallel proceedings before the LG Düsseldorf.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS and Substipharm
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected La Siddhi Consultancy Limited's application for suspensive effect of an order requiring it to provide €75,000 in security for legal costs in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 592 333. The Court of First Instance (Central Division Milan) had ordered the security under R. 158 RoP, and La Siddhi appealed, seeking suspension of that order pending appeal. The Court of Appeal held that La Siddhi failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, such as manifest error, infringement of fundamental procedural rights, or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
GC Aesthetics Group v.Establishment Labs S.A. (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
This is a Procedural Order from the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 107 487 B1, owned by Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS). The GC Aesthetics group of companies (Defendants in the infringement action) filed an application under R. 190 RoP seeking production of evidence from LABS related to the Motiva SilkSurface breast implants. The Court issued a conditional order granting certain evidence production requests while dismissing others, based on cumulative conditions including reasonable available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd, BYD Auto Co., Ltd, BYD Europe B.V., BYD France SAS, BYD Automotive GmbH, BYD Mobility GmbH, and BYD (U.K.) Co., Ltd.
BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI), a US company, brought a patent infringement action before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against multiple BYD Group entities domiciled in China, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and the UK, concerning European Patent EP2937706. Three BYD defendants domiciled in China and the UK filed a preliminary objection challenging the court's international jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts committed in the UK and UPC member states. The court held that it lacked international jurisdiction over the UK-domiciled Defendant 7 (BYD UK) since no infringing acts were alleged within UPC or EU territory, while deferring the jurisdictional question regarding the Chinese defendants to the decision on the merits.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o.
Brita SE sued Wessper Sp. z o.o. for indirect infringement of European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1 concerning a device for filtering liquids. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that Wessper indirectly infringed the patent by offering and distributing filter cartridges designed to interact with a second component according to the invention. The court ordered disclosure, damages, and other remedies, though the patent had expired on April 27, 2025.
Corning Incorporated v.TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Deutschland Verwaltungs GmbH, TCL Operations Polska Sp. z o.o., and TCL Belgium SA
Corning Incorporated sued four entities of the TCL Technology Group before the Local Division Mannheim for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 3 296 274, which covers methods for producing alkali-free, boroalumino silicate glass sheets used in LCD-TVs. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court found that Defendants 1 to 3 infringed the patent through the importation and sale of LCD-TVs incorporating glass sheets made by the patented process, granted injunctive relief and ancillary measures, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered a cost-split reflecting partial success on both sides.
Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V., and Belkin Limited v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied Belkin's requests regarding the timing of its appeal against a decision of the Munich Local Division in an infringement action brought by Philips concerning EP 2 867 997. The Local Division had issued a panel decision without reasons on 11 February 2026, and Belkin appealed on 13 April 2026, seeking an extension of the deadline for certain appeal requirements or, alternatively, a formal deficiency notice. The Court held that the time period for lodging a Statement of appeal had not yet begun to run because the first-instance decision lacked the required reasons.
Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v.Goodyear France S.A.S., Goodyear S.A., and Goodyear Operations S.A.
Michelin filed an infringement action against Goodyear before the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court based on European patent EP 2 323 858 B1 relating to variable surface area tire treads. Goodyear counterclaimed for revocation, and Michelin filed 14 auxiliary requests to conditionally amend the patent. The Court found the patent invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step over the prior art document KUNUGI (JP 2002 063323), revoked the patent entirely, dismissed Michelin's infringement claims, and ordered Michelin to bear the legal costs.
Prinoth SPA v.Xelom S.r.l.
Prinoth SPA, the plaintiff in a patent infringement action, sought a 30-day extension of time under Rule 9.3(a) RoP to file its reply, originally due April 27, 2026. The defendant Xelom opposed the request. The Local Division of Milan granted the extension until May 27, 2026, finding the request timely, well-motivated, and supported by evidence, given that Xelom had introduced numerous new documents, attacks, and arguments in its rejoinder that effectively constituted a new counterclaim for revocation.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside the Local Division The Hague's order dismissing Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s request for provisional measures concerning EP 3 988 471, a patent for a glucose monitoring system. The Court of Appeal found that the Respondents indirectly infringed claims 1 and 14 of the patent and ordered them to cease such infringement, subject to penalty payments. The Respondents' cross-appeal was declared inadmissible as they were not adversely affected by the first instance decision.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, and Sophia Genetics GmbH
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal concerns Guardant Health's application for leave to appeal a cost decision issued by the Paris Local Division. The standing judge granted leave to appeal, finding that the cost decision was prematurely issued before Guardant had access to unredacted confidential documents and an opportunity to comment. However, the request to join these cost appeal proceedings with the pending provisional measures appeal (UPC_CoA_19/2026) was rejected, as cost assessment is a separate procedure with its own appeal mechanism.
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag v.WEPA Nederland B.V
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag applied for preservation of evidence under R. 192 RoP against WEPA Nederland B.V concerning European patent EP 3 289 139 B1, which covers tissue paper comprising pulp fibers originating from Miscanthus. The Local Division of The Hague granted the application, allowing seizure of evidence including description, documents, and samples at WEPA's premises in Swalmen, applying specific Dutch national rules for seizure procedures.