European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 8 of 92 · 2,185 total
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 is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris concerning a request for revision under Rule 333 of the Rules of Procedure. KEEEX SAS, holder of European patent EP2949070, sought partial revision of a June 25, 2026 order that had rejected its request for further patent modification under R.30.2, declared the addition of new Truepic products as an inadmissible change of claim under R.263, and excluded certain sections of its June 5, 2026 brief as late-filed under R.9.2. The panel rejected both KEEEX's and ADOBE's revision requests, finding that the original order correctly applied UPC jurisprudence on subsequent patent modifications and procedural admissibility.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Asustek Computer Inc
The Unified Patent Court's Local Division in Lisbon confirmed a cost settlement between Ericsson and Asustek under Rule 365.1 RoP in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 819 131. Following a merits decision upholding Ericsson's infringement claim and dismissing Asustek's counterclaim for revocation, Ericsson requested confirmation of the parties' jointly submitted cost agreement requiring Asustek to pay EUR 150,000. The Court rejected Asustek's arguments that the agreement merely fixed a cost ceiling requiring a separate R. 150 procedure, holding that the substance of the agreement constituted a settlement resolving a potential cost dispute.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
This is a procedural order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in cases UPC CFI no. 377/2025 and no. 702/2025, concerning the rectification of a clerical mistake under R. 353 RoP. The judge-rapporteur informed the parties of the Court's intention to correct an error in a prior order issued on 22 July 2026, where the value of the counterclaim for revocation was incorrectly stated as EUR 1,850,000 instead of the correct EUR 1,875,000. Both parties confirmed they had no objection to the proposed rectification, and the order was issued accordingly.
Bystronic Laser AG and Others v.ASTES4 SA
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in a patent infringement action. The defendants (Bystronic group entities and Isochronic AG) sought the change to English, the language in which the patent EP2164678 was granted, while the claimant ASTES4 SA opposed it. The President granted the application, holding that all parties are part of international groups equally capable of litigating in English and that the defendants' position prevails when the balancing of interests is equal.
CJ CheilJedang Corporation v.Eppen Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP3508580, owned by CJ CheilJedang Corporation. The defendants requested an extension of the deadline for filing their Statement of Defence and a stay of proceedings, pending the claimant's own testing of previously seized samples. The Judge-Rapporteur granted a six-week extension of the SoD deadline running from the date the claimant submits its test results, and requested parties' availabilities in August for a potential case management hearing on access to seized technical documentation.
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application for inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 199 RoP) filed by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer, against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The applicant sought to inspect a tap-changer exhibited by the respondent at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. Following an ex parte order on May 20, 2026, the Local Chamber Munich modified the order on July 27, 2026 to refine confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication with the appointed expert.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This is a procedural order from the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action for European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute centered on whether SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or micro enterprise (SME), with the parties disagreeing over the relevance of an Investment Agreement. SYPOX withdrew the unredacted version of the Investment Agreement and relied only on the redacted version, and the court dismissed Topsoe's requests for access to the unredacted document.
Dolby International AB v.Optoma Deutschland GmbH & Others (Akteneinsicht)
A member of the public (a patent attorney) sought access to the case files of a concluded UPC infringement action between Dolby International AB and three Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber partially granted the request, allowing access to the complaint and most exhibits while excluding confidential out-of-court correspondence and requiring redaction of personal data and a confidentiality undertaking.
Dolby International AB v.Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 079 153. The Claimant, Dolby International AB, informed the Court that the parties had reached a settlement agreement signed on 17 July 2026, and both parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation. The Court granted the stay with immediate effect pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP, and indicated its intention to cancel the oral hearing scheduled for 8 April 2027.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. In this decision dated July 27, 2026, the court modified the original order regarding confidentiality provisions, access to the expert's report, and restrictions on communication between the applicant and the appointed expert.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1 (relating to a selector for an on-load tap-changer), for an inspection and evidence preservation order against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court had previously issued an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026. Following the respondent's review application and an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, the court modified the confidentiality provisions of the original order, supplemented it based on the parties' joint declarations, and rejected further requests.
Reinhausen GmbH v.Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
This case concerns an application by Reinhausen GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1 relating to an on-load tap-changer (Laststufenschalter), for an inspection and evidence preservation order under Article 60 of the UPC Agreement against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin. The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court initially granted an ex parte inspection order on May 20, 2026, and following an oral hearing on July 20, 2026, issued a modified order on July 27, 2026 adjusting the confidentiality provisions and the mechanism for access to the expert's report.
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This case management order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the reimbursement of overpaid appeal court fees. WEPA had appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague confirming a preservation of evidence order and paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees, but argued the correct fee was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the fixed fee under Rule 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR with no additional value-based fee, and ordered the Registry to reimburse 9,600 EUR.
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. v.Dolby International AB (EP 3 605 534)
Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V., as a member of the public, sought access to the court file of concluded main proceedings (UPC_CFI_226/2024) between Dolby International AB and Optoma entities concerning EP 3 605 534. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf partially granted the application, allowing access to the statement of claim with specified paragraphs and personal data redacted, while excluding the annexes.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem
ORDER
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Disney entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 449 782, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoding and decoding. The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court found that Disney had infringed the patent by offering and placing on the market encoded picture data and bitstreams in several Contracting Member States. The court dismissed Disney's counterclaim for revocation and issued injunctive relief, recall and removal orders, and information/accounting orders, while apportioning costs 90% to the Defendants and 10% to the Claimant.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V., High Tech Campus 34, 5656 AE Ei, 2) Philips RS North America LLC, 1001 Murry Ridge Lane, Murr
ORDER
Prinoth S.p.A. v.Xelom s.r.l.
This case before the UPC Local Division of Milan concerns patent infringement claims by Prinoth against Xelom regarding European patents EP 2507436 and EP 1995159, both relating to snow groomer (battipista) technology. Following an ex parte evidence preservation order executed in April 2025, Prinoth sought additional evidence including document production, physical inspection, and judicial experiments to prove infringement. The Judge Rapporteur granted the request for physical inspection and wei
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 procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division of Paris addressed Adobe's request to modify the security for costs previously ordered against KEEEX SAS in a patent infringement action concerning European Patent EP294090. The court found the modification request admissible but determined that only a 50% increase of the original €200,000 guarantee was appropriate, ordering KEEEX to provide an additional €100,000 in security within one month.
LiNA Medical AG, with its principal address Platz 3, 6039 Ro, schaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB, Jakob-Klar-Straße 14, 80796 v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Room 101, Building 6, Medi, Mr. Sam Lee, with a business address at Tonglu Qianyan Medte
Procedural Order