European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 76 of 84 · 2,007 total
Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales Co. Ltd.
Nokia sought an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction' from the Local Chamber Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court against Geely entities, seeking to prevent Geely from pursuing an 'Interim Licence' application before the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court that would force Nokia into a global interim licence agreement for its standard-essential patents. The court found it had jurisdiction and granted the interim measures, ordering Geely to withdraw the interim licence application with effect for the UPC territory and prohibiting further pursuit of the interim licence proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A. v.Alpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., and Motocard Bike S.l.
Dainese S.p.A. brought infringement actions against Alpinestars entities and Motocard Bike S.l. concerning European Patent EP 4 072 364 relating to protective airbag systems for motorcyclists. The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed jurisdictional objections from the Spanish-domiciled defendant Motocard Bike, ultimately dismissing the preliminary objection but separating and staying the infringement action regarding Spanish territory pending validity determination. The Court dismissed both the defendants' revocation counterclaims against EP '364 (as amended before the EPO Opposition Division) and Dainese's infringement claims.
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV v.BASF SE
Huntsman (EUROPE) BV and Huntsman Holland BV filed a revocation action against BASF SE's European Patent 1 516 720, which concerns a composite element containing a polyurethane adhesion promoter. The patent's 20-year maximum protection period had expired on August 7, 2024, before the action was filed on June 6, 2025. The Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in the amended form according to auxiliary request 1, with costs allocated 70% to the plaintiffs and 30% to the defendant.
3V Sigma S.p.A. and 3V Chimica Porto Marghera S.r.l. v.A.G.A. S.r.l., Azienda Chimica e Farmaceutica S.r.l. (A.C.E.F. S.r.l.), and MFCI Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC CFI n. 2052/2025, concerning a joint request by all parties to suspend proceedings. Defendant MFCI Co., Ltd. filed the request citing ongoing settlement negotiations, and all other parties consented. The court granted the suspension under Rule 295.1(d) RoP, holding that the proceedings would be stayed until four weeks after any party files a request to resume.
Quantificare S.A. v.Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found infringement of European Patent EP 3 156 843 B1 (relating to a device and method for three-dimensional reconstruction of head and body using stereophotogrammetry) by the defendants' Canfield Vectra H2 3D imaging system. The court held that establishing an infringing act in one Contracting Member State suffices to issue an order covering all Contracting Member States where the patent is in force, even where the patent proprietor carves out one member state (here Germany) for procedural reasons. The revocation counterclaim was dismissed, injunctive relief and provisional damages were granted, and costs were allocated 90/10 against the defendants.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the Claimant's request for review of an order requiring it to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 300,000 in patent infringement proceedings against Xiaomi entities. The court held that a bank guarantee provided by the Defendants as 'FRAND security' does not relieve the Claimant of its obligation to provide security for costs, and that ATE insurance negotiations do not automatically remove such an obligation. The Judge-Rapporteur's order of 24 March 2026 was upheld, and leave to appeal was not granted.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others (UPC_CFI_617/2024)
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court correcting a clerical error in a prior order. The correction changes the case number from UPC_CFI_617/2025 to UPC_CFI_617/2024. The underlying proceedings concern alleged patent infringement involving European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, with Advanced Standard Communication LLC as the claimant and several Xiaomi entities as defendants.
Stratasys, Inc. v.Bambulab GmbH
Stratasys, Inc. sought provisional measures against Bambulab GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) alleging infringement of European Patent EP 2 964 450, which relates to additive manufacturing methods for printing 3D parts with purge towers. The dispute concerned BambuLab's H2C 3D printer, which Stratasys claimed infringed the patent. The Court dismissed the application, finding that (indirect) infringement could not be established with the required certainty, and ordered Stratasys to pay Bambulab EUR 112,000 in costs.
Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH v.Dall Energy ApS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Polytechnik's application for suspensive effect of an order by the Copenhagen Local Division compelling it to produce construction drawings and operation/maintenance manuals in patent infringement proceedings brought by Dall Energy concerning EP 2 334 762. The Court held that Polytechnik failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a stay, finding that the confidentiality protections in the order were adequate and that the alleged prejudice did not meet the threshold of a breach of fundamental procedural rights.
10x Genomics, Inc. v.Curio Bioscience Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of a €200,000 security for costs deposited by Curio Bioscience Inc. in proceedings concerning EP 2 697 391 B1. Following the Court's cost decisions and the Claimant's receipt of the amounts owed, the Defendant applied for release of the security, to which the Claimant did not object.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Hisense Gorenje Germany GmbH et al.
This is a rectification decision issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 27 April 2026 in case UPC_CFI_716/2025 concerning European Patent EP 2 258 692 B1. The Court corrected a calculation error in Section V of its earlier order dated 16 February 2026, finding that 60% of the court fees amounted to €18,600 rather than the previously stated €14,400.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. v.ONWARD Medical N.V. (UPC_CoA_60/2026)
This decision concerns an application for cost assessment filed by Niche Biomedical, Inc. with the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, which was withdrawn on the same day it was filed. The Court of Appeal admitted the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 265(1) RoP, noting that the Court of First Instance (Local Division Munich) has jurisdiction over cost assessment applications, and declared the proceedings terminated.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1 relating to clay-based hemostatic agents and devices, brought an infringement action against Speed Care Mineral GmbH concerning its SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing. Speed Care filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Hamburg revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9 for ten contracting states, dismissed the infringement action, and ordered Teleflex to bear the costs.
Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV v.In(k)control BV (UPC_CFI_871/2026)
The President of the UPC Court of First Instance dismissed an application by Esko-Software BV and Esko-Graphics BV (Defendants in the main proceedings) to change the language of proceedings from Dutch to English in an infringement action brought by In(k)control BV concerning EP 3841735. The court held that while English is the language of the patent and the relevant technology field, the particular circumstances—including the significant size disparity between the parties and the fact that all parties are domiciled in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium—outweighed the advantages of conducting the proceedings in English.
Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France v.Viatris Santé
Merz, the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 377 536 and French Supplementary Protection Certificate No. 13C0033 covering FAMPYRA® (fampridine) for treating multiple sclerosis, sought provisional measures against Viatris Santé for marketing a generic version (FAMPRIDINE VIATRIS®) in France. The Paris Local Division rejected the application for lack of urgency, finding Merz had delayed unreasonably. The Court of Appeal set aside that order, granted the provisional measures, and ordered Viatris Santé to refrain from marketing the generic in France until the SPC expires on 25 July 2026.
fiskaly GmbH v.SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
fiskaly GmbH, holder of European Patent EP 4 285 308 B8 relating to securely registering a sequence of transactions, applied to the Local Chamber Düsseldorf for an order for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA) at the German premises of SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG, suspecting infringement. The court granted the application in part, ordering inspection by an independent expert, confidentiality protections, and requiring fiskaly to provide EUR 10,000 security and bear all costs, while dismissing the remainder of the application.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, Ltd. filed an application under Rule 275 of the Rules of Procedure before the Milan Local Division seeking alternative methods of service on two defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong. The court dismissed the application, finding that standard service attempts through the Hague Service Convention were still underway and it could not yet be determined that service could not be effected as required by Rule 275.1 RoP.
Optopol Technology Sp. z o.o. v.Topcon Corporation
This case concerns a request for discretionary review of a procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Respondent (Topcon) missed the deadline to file its Reply to the Statement of defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation, prompting the Applicant (Optopol) to seek a default decision. The Local Division dismissed the application for re-establishment of rights but retroactively extended the time period under R. 9.3(a) RoP. The Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review, finding the impugned order was not manifestly incorrect.
Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd. v.Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_869/2025 concerning EP 3 805 415. The Plaintiff, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., filed a late objection under Rule 9.2 RoP against new factual submissions made by the Defendants (Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals GmbH) in their reply to the amendment request in revocation proceedings. The Rapporteur Judge postponed the decision on the late objection to be decided by the full panel, but granted the Plaintiff a precautionary opportunity to file a further pleading by May 19, 2026, in view of the principle of equality of arms.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation (UPC_CoA_21/2026)
Suinno, proprietor of EP 2 671 173, appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division revoking its patent following a counterclaim by Microsoft. After the Court of Appeal ordered Suinno to provide EUR 600,000 in security for costs, Suinno applied to revoke that order, sought a time extension, and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU. The Court of Appeal rejected all of Suinno's applications, holding that Article 69(4) UPCA is not limited to the cases in Articles 59–62, that the security order was justified, and that a CJEU referral was unwarranted.
FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & others v.Dolle A/S
Procedural order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court suspending appeal proceedings on the joint request of both parties. Fakro and Dolle had reached an out-of-court settlement, under which Dolle would withdraw the infringement action and Fakro would withdraw the counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered suspension of the proceedings to prevent the expiration of the deadline for filing the statement of grounds of appeal before decisions on the withdrawals could be made.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 281 569. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Thom, issued directions under Rule 332 of the Rules of Procedure regarding the conduct of infringement and validity proceedings, including requirements for substantiated pleadings, interpretation of the patent, and auxiliary requests. The court set deadlines for the parties to revise their submissions and report on settlement efforts.
CUP&CINO Kaffeesystem-Vertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v.ALPINA Coffee Systems GmbH (EP 3 610 762)
Procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court on April 28, 2026, in cases UPC_CFI_52/2025 and UPC_CFI_67/2025 concerning European Patent EP 3 610 762. The court, presided over by Judge Dr. Thom, issued directions under Rule 332 RoP regarding the presentation of infringement and validity arguments, the interpretation of the patent, and the handling of auxiliary requests. The order also set a timetable for further submissions and requested the parties to report on settlement efforts.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy et al.
AIM Sport Development AG brought an infringement action against several TGI (formerly Supponor) entities concerning European patent EP 3 295 663, which relates to digital content replacement systems used in broadcasting. TGI counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Helsinki dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with each party bearing its own costs up to the applicable ceiling.