European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 77 of 84 · 2,007 total
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport Suomi Oy et al. (CMS no ACT_551054/2023)
This order from the Local Division Helsinki of the Unified Patent Court concerned a preliminary injunction (PI) application filed by AIM Sport Development AG against several TGI Sport entities (formerly Supponor) regarding European patent EP 3 295 663. The parties agreed that the PI application had become devoid of purpose and there was no need to adjudicate on it, but they disagreed on costs. The Court disposed of the PI application under R. 360 RoP, set the value of the PI proceedings at EUR 9.9 million, and ordered AIM Sport to bear TGI's reasonable and proportionate costs up to a ceiling of EUR 800,000.
IQIP Holding B.V. v.TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V. and TMS Technical & Maritime Services B.V.
Infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP2148123, where the defendants (TMS) sought an order under Rule 190 RoP to compel the claimant (IQIP Holding B.V.) and third party (IQIP B.V.) to produce evidence in support of their public prior use defence. The Local Division The Hague partially granted the request, ordering production of specified technical documents relating to the 2008 Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands Projects, but denied requests for invoices and contractual documents that IQIP stated it did not possess, and imposed confidentiality protections.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.Keeex SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed as inadmissible an appeal filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division requiring Keeex SAS to provide a security for costs of €50,000 in connection with a patent infringement action based on EP 2 949 070. The Court held that under Rule 220.2 RoP, an order for security for costs can only be appealed either together with the main decision or with prior authorization from the Court of First Instance, and that the erroneous reference to Rule 220.1 RoP in the contested order did not cure Adobe's failure to seek such authorization.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, and General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by the Defendants (Katun entities and General Plastic Industrial) for a confidentiality order under R. 262A RoP regarding information they were required to disclose following a finding of infringement of Canon's European Patent EP 3 686 683 (relating to toner bottles). The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application, holding that it was filed too late after the proceedings on the merits had concluded, and that the substantive limitation on the use of disclosed information is a matter to be determined in the merits proceedings, not in enforcement proceedings.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application for partial reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action concerning EP 1 954 091 B1. The plaintiff had withdrawn the action before the conclusion of the written proceedings, and the defendant consented to the withdrawal. Applying Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure (version effective January 1, 2026), the court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,500) and rejected the plaintiff's request for a higher reimbursement of 60%.
Guala Pack S.p.A. v.LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
Guala Pack S.p.A. filed an infringement action against Chinese company LD Packaging (Foshan) Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division. While the statement of claim was being served via the Hague Convention at the defendant's registered office in China, Guala Pack sought an alternative order for service at LD Packaging's stand at the Interpack trade fair in Düsseldorf. The court granted the application, holding that operating a trade fair stand constitutes a temporary place of business under Rule 271.5(a) RoP, and ordered service by a German bailiff under German national law pursuant to Rule 271.4(b) RoP.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities
Procedural 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 multiple Acer entities concerning European Patent EP3079153. The order follows a case management hearing held on 23 February 2026 and addresses issues relating to the patent's inclusion in the Vectis pool, a Rule 190 request by Acer, and Acer's potential counterclaim for rate setting against Vectis. The court directed the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and ordered Dolby to file a submission.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. & Acer Entities (UPC-CFI-1536/2025)
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerns an infringement action by Dolby International AB against CPYou B.V. and multiple Acer entities regarding European Patent EP 3 079 153 B1, which is part of the Vectis Opus Patent Pool. The court addressed four main issues: the intervention of Vectis IP Ltd., an order to produce comparable licence agreements, the establishment of a confidentiality regime, and an extension of deadlines. The court admitted Vectis as an intervener, declared the counterclaim for rate-setting against Vectis admissible, ordered production of licence agreements, and established a detailed confidentiality club regime.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities (Procedural Order on Rectification)
Procedural order of the Local Division The Hague rectifying an obvious error in a prior order of 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended. The Court rectified the references on pages 3 and 7 of the prior order, changing 'Dolby and Acer' to 'Dolby and Vectis' under section A, first sentence.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V. and Acer Entities (Vectis IP Ltd. as Intervener)
This procedural order from the Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order accepting a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. in an infringement action involving EP3079153. The panel denied the review sought by Dolby and Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and a counterclaim may be directed against it, particularly given the equal treatment principle and Vectis's authority to grant licenses. The Court added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby and granted leave to appeal.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH (UPC_CFI_1696/2025)
This case concerns a review under Rule 197.3 of the Rules of Procedure of an order for inspection and preservation of evidence concerning European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 (Hydrogen Production by Steam Methane Reforming). The Local Chamber Düsseldorf rejected SYPOX GmbH's challenge to the appointed experts (Dipl.-Ing. Philipp Harlacher and Dipl.-Ing. Annkathrin Solf) for alleged bias, as well as SYPOX's requests to declare the experts' detailed report inadmissible and to delete all data collected during the inspection. The court clarified that the experts' invoices constitute inspection costs to be borne by Topsoe A/S and maintained the requirement of EUR 500,000 security before the reactor could be opened.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court revoked an inspection and evidence preservation order concerning EP 2 983 864 B1 because the applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, failed to initiate main proceedings within the statutory deadline of 31 calendar days or 20 working days following the disclosure of the expert's detailed description. The court ordered the return and destruction of all evidence obtained, including a seized brochure, and held OTEC liable for the costs of the proceedings.
Simmons & Simmons LLP (Application for Public Access under R. 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings between Genentech Inc. & F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. & NV Organon)
Simmons & Simmons LLP applied under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for access to written pleadings and evidence filed in two underlying UPC proceedings (UPC_CFI_407/2025 and UPC_CFI_408/2025) concerning EP 3 401 335 B1, involving Genentech/Roche as claimants and Organon as defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur partially granted the request, allowing access to redacted versions of certain key submissions (the original applications, review applications, and comments) while dismissing access to other documents, particularly those related to evidence preservation/inspection proceedings where no merits proceedings followed and those subject to pending destruction/return requests.
Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Organon Heist B.V. and NV Organon
This is a procedural order issued by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 401 335 B1. The order addresses a clerical mistake in the name of one of the representatives of Genentech & Roche in a R. 262.1.(b) RoP order issued earlier the same day. The Judge-Rapporteur directed that a new corrected order would be issued to replace the erroneous one.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
Gilead Sciences, Inc. brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Milan seat) of the Unified Patent Court against the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) seeking invalidation of European Patent No. 3 854 403, which covers the use of Remdesivir for treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. The claimant argued the patent lacked inventive step and sufficient disclosure, while the defendant sought to maintain the patent as granted or in amended form. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety, dismissed all amendment requests, and ordered the defendant to bear the costs set by agreement at €800,000, with the value of the case fixed at €20 million.
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC v.Krahn Chemie Benelux BV (Review of Preservation of Evidence Order)
AdvanSix Resins & Chemicals LLC obtained an ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection of premises against Krahn Chemie Benelux BV and two Italian defendants, alleging indirect infringement of EP3286270 relating to an anti-skinning composition comprising at least 98 wt% of 2-pentanone oxime. Krahn filed a review of the ex parte order under R.197.3 RoP, seeking revocation of the order, return of seized evidence, and provision of security. The Court dismissed Krahn's requests to revoke the order but ordered that the Technical Report NL be released to AdvanSix only upon provision of a EUR 50,000 security deposit.
Miele & Cie. KG v.Melitta Europa GmbH & Co. KG
Miele sought interim measures against Melitta before the Local Chamber Munich, alleging that Melitta's manufacture and sale of 'SWIRL M60' vacuum cleaner filter bags infringed claims 7 to 11 of European Patent EP 4 676 295 B1. After the court indicated that the validity of the asserted claims appeared undermined by prior art (DE 3403121 A1), Miele withdrew its application. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, ordered Miele to bear Melitta's costs, but granted Miele a 50% refund of court fees (EUR 7,300) because the withdrawal followed the court's suggestion and saved it substantial work.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited & Others
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3119235 owned by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group and related entities. The defendants requested a stay of proceedings pending a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and pending accelerated opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office (EPO). The judge-rapporteur refused both requests for a stay at the present time, holding that a stay is an exception and that neither a rapid EPO decision nor a CJEU referral justified staying the entire case at this stage.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. (UPC_CFI_335/2025)
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. against NUC Electronics Co., Ltd. before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's earlier decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the claimant withdrew its application for a cost decision. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered in the register.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd.
This order concerns enforcement proceedings related to European Patent No. EP 2 028 981 before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its request for the imposition of penalty payments on the Defendant. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This case concerns an application for a cost decision filed by Hurom Co., Ltd. following the dismissal of its infringement action regarding European Patent No. EP 2 028 981. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division Mannheim's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the infringement action, the claimant withdrew its application for a cost decision by brief of 10 April 2026. The Local Division Mannheim permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and held that no decision on the costs of the cost proceedings was necessary.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Europe GmbH & WARMCOOK
This order concerns the withdrawal of a request for the imposition of penalty payments in enforcement proceedings before the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court. After the Court of Appeal set aside the Local Division's decision of 11 March 2025 and dismissed the underlying infringement action, the Claimant withdrew its penalty payment requests. The court permitted the withdrawal and ordered the Claimant to bear the costs of the enforcement proceedings.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted Brita SE's application for the determination of coercive fines against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for non-compliance with a December 9, 2025 order concerning EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant was ordered to pay 1,000 EUR per day for each day of non-compliance with the information obligation since March 31, 2026, and was threatened with an additional 1,500 EUR per day for continued non-compliance after May 5, 2026.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Others
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court in consolidated proceedings (CFI_196/2025 and CFI_665/2025) concerning European patent EP 2 403 266. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 30 April 2026, addressing case management matters including the value of proceedings, exhibit submissions, confidentiality, limitation of invalidity attacks and auxiliary requests, and scheduling of the oral hearing for 23 July 2026.