European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 78 of 84 · 2,007 total
Agathon AG v.Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH
Agathon AG, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 363 263 B1 relating to a centring device for a forming tool, brought an infringement action against Intercom S.r.l. and Knarr Vertriebs GmbH concerning centring devices marketed under specific article numbers. The defendants denied infringement and Intercom filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The case was heard by the Court of First Instance, Milan Local Division, with a decision delivered on 5 May 2026.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v.Occlutech GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in provisional measures proceedings related to European patent EP 2 387 951. The appellants, Lepu Medical entities, withdrew their appeal against a cease-and-desist injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division in favor of Occlutech GmbH, and the Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the appellants to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed a patent infringement action against Asustek Computer Inc before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131 B1, alleging that Asustek's laptops and notebooks incorporating Intel Wi-Fi 6 AX201 and Wi-Fi 6E AX211 modules infringed the patent. Asustek counterclaimed for revocation, arguing added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step, while Ericsson filed conditional auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court found Asustek liable for infringement from Q2 2019 (AX201) and Q3 2021 (AX211) until 15 February 2025, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation finding the patent valid in its amended form, and ordered Asustek to pay damages and provide accounting information subject to penalty payments.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH (UPC_CFI_1536/2026)
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, holder of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against ANCA Europe GmbH at the GrindingHub Stuttgart 2026 trade fair. OTEC suspected that ANCA's EPX-SF grinding machine infringed its patent. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf granted the application, ordering inspection and measurement of the EPX-SF machine at the trade fair stand, subject to detailed procedural safeguards including confidentiality protections.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court (UPC_CFI_388/2025) concerning corrections to a prior decision dated May 6, 2026, in a patent infringement action involving EP 4 117 857 B1. The defendant filed eleven correction requests under R. 353 of the Rules of Procedure, and the court partially granted them, correcting clerical errors and obvious mistakes in the representatives' details, claim language, dates, and certain paragraphs while rejecting the remaining requests.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, a family business specializing in knife sharpening devices, sued Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court for infringement of EP 4 117 857 B1, which protects a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer). The claimant alleged that the defendant's product 'Trinity-S' infringed claims 1 and 14 of the patent. The court largely upheld the claimant's requests, granting injunctive relief, recall, information, destruction, provisional damages of EUR 3,000, and publication of the judgment, while partially dismissing certain claims and allocating costs with the defendant bearing two-thirds.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH & MedEnvoy Global BV
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA sought provisional measures against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1 concerning a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the application, finding that Ottobock had not acted with sufficient urgency after learning of the allegedly infringing knee system, as it could have filed the application by mid/late October 2025 but waited until December 10, 2025. Ottobock was ordered to bear the costs and pay provisional cost reimbursement of €40,651.20 to the respondents.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA sought interim measures from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 001 984 B1 concerning a method for controlling an orthopedic joint. The court rejected the application, finding that Ottobock had not acted with sufficient urgency, as it should have known about the allegedly infringing 'Kneuro microprocessor' product earlier than it claimed. Ottobock was ordered to bear the costs and pay provisional cost reimbursement of €18,150.00.
Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV v.Barco NV (Cost Decision, UPC_CFI_2265/2025)
This is a cost decision (R. 150 RoP) of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Brussels, concerning EP 3 732 827 owned by Barco NV. Yealink sought a final cost award of €237,257.84 following preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings in which Barco's requests were dismissed for lack of urgency, though Yealink's competence challenges were also dismissed. The Court held Yealink to be a 'partly successful party,' applied the cost ceiling separately for first instance and appeal proceedings, deducted Barco's costs related to the dismissed competence challenge, excluded interpretation costs incurred under R. 109.4 RoP, and allowed recovery of travel and hotel costs.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. et al.
Procedural order of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in proceedings concerning EP2590626 B1, addressing two applications by the parties. The Court dismissed GSK's application under Rule 176 to have five party experts heard in person, finding that GSK failed to specify which facts each expert would confirm. The Court also dismissed Moderna's third Rule 9.3 application for a one-week extension to file its rejoinder to the application to amend, finding no exceptional circumstances justifying the extension.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda. & Silimed GmbH v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH & Others
The Claimants, who became the rightful owners of European Patent EP 2 581 193 B1 through entitlement proceedings, filed an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants raised preliminary objections arguing that the UPC lacked jurisdiction because the patent had been validly opted out. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed the action, holding that the withdrawal of the opt-out was ineffective due to pending national revocation proceedings before the German Federal Patent Court.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed a request for discretionary review filed by Adobe against an order of the Paris Local Division. The underlying dispute concerned Adobe's request under R. 334(h) RoP to dismiss claims in KEEEX SAS's infringement action relating to non-UPC member states. The Court of Appeal held the request had become moot because the same legal question had already been conclusively settled in related proceedings.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.KEEEX SAS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request filed by Adobe under Rule 220.3 of the Rules of Procedure. The request sought to challenge a Paris Local Division order that had refused to dismiss claims relating to alleged infringement of national parts of EP 2 949 070 in non-contracting states. The Court held the request had become moot because the Court of Appeal had already resolved the underlying jurisdictional question in a prior order of March 13, 2026.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd & Others
This is a preliminary order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning three consolidated infringement actions brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants, including several Transsion group companies and other distributors. The order follows a case management hearing held on 5 March 2026 and addresses procedural matters, including parallel proceedings, the status of unrepresented defendants, and the ongoing confidentiality regime dispute. The court directed the case to proceed according to the Rules of Procedure and invited the parties to agree on a confidentiality regime, with a deadline of 10 April 2026 for the Transsion defendants to respond to the confidentiality request in the absence of agreement.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v.Micron Technology, Inc. et al.
Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (Claimant) brought a patent infringement action against four Micron entities (Defendants) concerning EP 3 909 047 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Claimant sought a confidentiality order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP to protect a TechInsights report it wished to submit as evidence, which was subject to US export control restrictions preventing disclosure to the Claimant itself. The Defendants opposed, arguing the report was publicly available and the Claimant had not met its burden of proof. The Court granted the confidentiality order, finding the conditions of R. 262A RoP were satisfied and that the parties could waive the requirement for a natural person from the Claimant to be included in the confidentiality club.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. v.Xingi Technology Co., Ltd & Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd.
Avient Protective Materials B.V. brought a patent infringement action against the Xingi Group concerning European Patent No. 2 791 402 relating to Ultra-high Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) Multifilament Yarn. Avient filed a Rule 190 application seeking the production of physical samples of the defendants' UD Fabric/ballistic sheets and internal test data to prove infringement of claims 13-15. The Court of First Instance partially granted the application, ordering production of at least 30 kg each of specific UD Fabric samples and English versions of an Introduction Video, while dismissing the remaining requests.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign France Technology SASU & Others
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures, including a preliminary injunction, against four entities in the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 295 806 B1, which relates to methods of designing orthodontic appliances (clear aligners). The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application, finding that Align Technology failed to sufficiently establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant features of claim 1 (and corresponding claim 14) were realized in a single aligner of the defendants' challenged 'A7 Premolar Extraction Solution.' The Applicant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, with the value of the case set at EUR 1,600,000.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences PVT Limited et al.
This decision concerns three consolidated cost decision proceedings (UPC_CFI_775/2025, UPC_CFI_776/2025, and UPC_CFI_777/2025) before the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division of the Unified Patent Court, relating to European Patent EP 3 769 722 B1. Following a settlement between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the Meril group of companies, the parties withdrew their applications for cost decisions but maintained their requests for confidentiality protection. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed the proceedings, and granted the agreed-upon confidentiality orders designating specific sections and exhibits as Confidential Information under Article 58 UPCA.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and MediaTek
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Huawei's request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich concerning Quinn Emanuel's request for access to case file documents under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The court found that the question of whether a Rapporteur's decision granting file access is subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP raises fundamental legal questions warranting appeal. The appeal was admitted and the case was referred to a panel, with parties given the opportunity to submit further observations.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (UPC_CoA_53/2026)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted Huawei's application for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP of a decision by the Local Division Munich concerning Quinn Emanuel's request for access to case files under R. 262.1(b) RoP. The court found that fundamental legal questions regarding the reviewability of the Rapporteur's decision under R. 333 RoP and the applicable appeal provisions under R. 220 RoP warranted further examination, and admitted the appeal while granting the parties an opportunity to submit further written observations.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning three infringement actions brought by Ericsson against multiple defendants (including Transsion group entities and others) relating to three standard essential patents. The Transsion defendants filed a R.9.3 Application seeking an extension of the deadline for filing their combined non-technical Statement of Defence, arguing they needed in-house access to confidential information to prepare a FRAND defence. The court dismissed the application, finding it was filed too late, the requested extension was open-ended, and that access by representatives and experts alone was sufficient at this stage.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.
Nissan Deutschland GmbH filed a revocation action against EP 1903733 before the Unified Patent Court's Central Division in Paris. Before service on the Defendant (Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Ltd.), the Claimant applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 RoP. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees (EUR 13,250) under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited (UPC_CFI_2282/2025)
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1770912 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Paris Seat). After Avago filed its Defence along with an application to amend the patent, Dacia applied to withdraw the action under Rule 265 RoP, with Avago's consent and an agreement that each party would bear its own costs. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered the decision to be entered on the Register.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) in three consolidated infringement actions brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple defendants including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities, concerning three standard essential patents (EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, and EP 3 245 744 B1). The order addresses the Transsion defendants' applications for an extension of time to file their combined non-technical Statement of Defence (including FRAND aspects) and for revision of a prior order, both premised on the ongoing dispute over the confidentiality regime governing access to Ericsson's confidential information and comparable licenses. The Court granted a two-week extension of the non-technical SoD deadline to 29 May 2026, invited further submissions on the confidentiality regime, and set deadlines for the parties' further comments.