European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 79 of 84 · 2,007 total
Robert Bosch Entities v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage (UPC-CoA-50/2026)
This procedural order concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the language to be used at an oral hearing. The Appellants (multiple Robert Bosch entities) requested that the hearing be held in English or that their representative be permitted to speak in English, while the Respondent (Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage) consented to the hearing being held in English. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral hearing of 26 May 2026 be conducted in English, without changing the language of the proceedings.
Robert Bosch GmbH & Others v.Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns an appeal by multiple Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage concerning European patent EP 4 144 599. The Bosch appellants requested that the scheduled hearing be conducted in English, or alternatively that their representative be permitted to speak in English, citing insufficient fluency in French. Valeo agreed that the hearing should be held in English. The judge-rapporteur ordered that the oral proceedings at the May 26, 2026 hearing would be conducted in English, without changing the language of the appeal proceedings.
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB – Request for Access (UPC_CFI_1026/2026) v.Ex Parte
This decision concerns a request filed by BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB for access to written pleadings and evidence under R. 262.1(b) RoP in connection with patent infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_661/2026) brought by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson against multiple Verifone entities and Adyen N.V. concerning EP 4 277 422, EP 2 506 479, and EP 3 397 009. After the judge-rapporteur informed Ericsson that it could not expect a production order regarding a third-party licence agreement without properly informing its licensee, Ericsson updated its licensees on the confidentiality regime, and the Applicant withdrew its request. The Mannheim Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and declined to award costs.
La Siddhi Consultancy Limited v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an appeal against an order of the Central Division Milan requiring the appellant, La Siddhi Consultancy Limited, to provide security for costs in the amount of €75,000 in revocation proceedings concerning EP 3 592 333. The court held that the appellant had failed to substantiate its financial position and that its claimed SME status did not, in itself, dispense with the obligation to provide security for costs under R. 158 RoP.
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technologies Inc. (Application for Security for Costs)
This order concerns an application by Defendant 2 Shinkyung Inc. under Rule 158 of the Rules of Procedure for security for costs in proceedings concerning EP 3 003 087 B1 before the Local Division Düsseldorf. Shinkyung sought EUR 200,000 in security, citing the alleged poor financial state of Boa Technologies' holding company CODI. The court dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant (Boa Technologies) is relevant, not that of its non-party holding company, and finding that Boa Technologies had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Boa Technology Inc. v.Zuatu Cycling International d.o.o. & Shinkyung Inc.
The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the Defendants' request for security for costs (EUR 200,000) in proceedings concerning EP 2 805 639 B2. The Court held that only the financial situation of the Claimant itself (Boa Technology Inc.) should be considered, not that of its holding company CODI, and found that the Claimant had demonstrated sufficient financial means to compensate the Defendants for legal costs.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) following an interim conference in two related infringement actions (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025) brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD Global Oy concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 590 590. The court addressed the value of the actions, admission of auxiliary requests and amended operational requests, the exhaustion defence relating to the AAC Patent License Agreement, and the FRAND defence. The court admitted the Claimant's FRAND submission but dismissed the Defendant's request for a further opportunity to comment on it.
Nokia Technologies Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Technologies Oy filed an infringement action against numerous Geely Group entities (including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus, and smart companies) regarding European Patent EP 4 090 075, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. During the written procedure, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and sought withdrawal of both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim. The Local Chamber Munich permitted the withdrawals, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side under the new Rule 370.9(b) RoP (applicable from January 1, 2026), while rejecting Nokia's request for a 60% reimbursement.
KEEEX SAS v.Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI OpCo LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, and Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
This case concerns a request for revision (R. 333 RoP) filed by defendants Adobe against an order of the judge-rapporteur dated April 24, 2026, which had rejected the defendants' requests to declare inadmissible or summarily dismiss KEEEX's claim for provisional damages (€120 million) made in its reply brief. The panel rejected all of Adobe's arguments, confirming that the provisional damages claim was not contrary to the procedural protocol, was not late, and did not warrant summary dismissal at this stage. The panel also declined to grant leave to appeal.
Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH v.Fujifilm (EP 3 511 174)
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 511 174 (DE and UK designations), a patent relating to lithographic printing plate precursors. The consolidated appeals (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025, UPC_CoA_882/2025) addressed issues of claim construction, private prior use, international jurisdiction over non-UPC patent designations, joint tortfeasorship, and front-loaded proceedings. The Court of Appeal issued important headnotes on the UPC's international jurisdiction, particularly regarding European patents validated in non-UPC territories, and on how the Court should handle infringement and revocation actions involving EU/LC and non-EU/LC European patents.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (UPC-CFI-0002246/2025)
This is an order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) dated 2 June 2026, concerning an application to vary the operative part of an earlier order of 28 May 2026 in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against several Oppo entities regarding patent EP3944587. The parties jointly requested minor variations to the disclosure obligations regarding KPN's licensing agreements and to the deadline for the Statement of Defence. The Judge-Rapporteur allowed the joint request and ordered the variations as requested.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others
An infringement action concerning European Patent EP2387844 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division). The patent had been revoked by the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO, and the claimant KPN had filed a petition for review with the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP pending a final, non-appealable decision in the EPO opposition proceedings, and the court granted the joint request.
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB and Others
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 618 514 against seven defendants, including LYNK & CO, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities. The Claimant subsequently requested permission to withdraw the action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Panel permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Establishment Labs S.A. v.GC Aesthetics ParentCo Limited & Others (UPC_CFI_1357/2025, UPC_CFI_629/2026)
Establishment Labs S.A. (LABS), the proprietor of EP 3 107 487 B1, applied under Rule 263.3 RoP to limit its infringement action by withdrawing the UK designation portion of its claim against several GC Aesthetics defendants. The defendants sought dismissal, declarations of manifest inadmissibility under Rule 361 RoP, immediate cost awards, and prospective restrictions on future UPC claims. The Brussels Local Division granted LABS unconditional leave to limit its claims, held that Defendants 2 and 10 no longer had a legal basis to remain in the infringement proceedings but should stay for cost purposes, granted the defendants leave to limit their counterclaim, and granted leave to appeal.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of orders from the Court of Appeal and the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP3119235. During oral proceedings in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement not to seek cost reimbursement. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning patent EP2237738. Align Technology sought to disregard the Defendants' late-filed non-infringement arguments (paragraphs 49-57 of the Rejoinder) and Exhibits AR 12 and AR 13, arguing they were raised for the first time in the Rejoinder rather than in the Statement of Defence. The Judge-rapporteur granted Align's application, declaring the new arguments and exhibits inadmissible and ordering they not be relied upon at any subsequent stage of the proceedings.
Sanofi Biotechnologies SAS & Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.Amgen Inc. & Others (EP 4 252 857)
This case before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerned the withdrawal of a patent infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European patent EP 4 252 857. Both parties mutually withdrew their respective claims before the closure of the written procedure and requested reimbursement of 50% of court fees. The Court permitted the withdrawals, closed both proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of court fees under the amended Rule 370.9 RoP applicable from 1 January 2026.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company) contesting the UPC's international jurisdiction over it in an infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Claimant sought relief against all three defendants in Germany, France, Finland, and the UK. The court held that while jurisdiction under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation could be established via anchor defendants for UPC member states, the Claimant failed to plead facts showing that the anchor defendants (German entities) jointly infringed the UK part of the patent.
Morello Forni Italia S.R.L. and Morello Forni S.A.S. di Morello Marco & C. v.Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
Nokia Technologies Oy & Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. & Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales Co. Ltd.
This case before the Local Chamber Mannheim concerned an application for provisional measures, specifically an 'Anti-Anti Suit Injunction,' filed by Nokia entities against Geely entities regarding European Patents EP 3 799 333 and EP 4 090 075. After the injunction was granted ex parte on April 20, 2026, and security of €600,000 was deposited, the applicants withdrew the application with the respondents' consent. The court allowed the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, and ordered the full release of the security deposit.
2seventy Bio, Inc. v.Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Biotech, Inc., et al. and Legend Biotech Corporation, et al.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Brussels of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 689 383, owned by the United States of America. The Claimant, 2seventy Bio, Inc., filed an infringement action against Johnson & Johnson, various Janssen entities, and Legend Biotech entities, who filed counterclaims for revocation. The Court indicated its intention to hold a joint hearing of the infringement action and the counterclaims for revocation under Article 33(3)(a) UPCA, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure uniform interpretation of the patent.
Ferring B.V. and Others v.Accord Healthcare B.V. and Others
Procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning European Patent EP4512389 owned by Ferring B.V. The defendants (various Accord Healthcare entities and others) requested correction of service dates and alignment of deadlines for filing preliminary objections and statements of defence. The judge-rapporteur granted the request, setting uniform deadlines for all defendants while reserving rights regarding defendant 6 (Pharmadox Healthcare Limited), whose representative had not yet appeared.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG and Others
Hologic, Inc. brought an infringement action against four Siemens entities concerning European Patent EP 2 352 431 B1, which protects a method and system for controlling x-ray focal spot characteristics for tomosynthesis and mammography imaging. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Düsseldorf Local Division found infringement by the MAMMOMAT B.brilliant mammography system, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, damages, and publication of the decision, with costs split 80/20 against the defendants.
Unreadable due to text encoding corruption v.Ex Parte
The provided judgment text is severely corrupted with encoding errors, rendering the case name, parties, facts, and outcome unreadable. Fragments suggest it may be a patent validity or infringement case involving analysis of patent claims and prior art, but no reliable details can be extracted.