European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 8 of 67 · 1,592 total
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH (and associated Myriad entities)
In a significant decision, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which covered methods for quantifying gene expression in breast cancer tissue. The patent holder, GXD-Bio Corporation, had sued Myriad International GmbH and its subsidiaries for infringement, while the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ultimately sided with the defendants on the revocation claim, invalidating the patent across all relevant territories. This case highlights the dual risk inherent in UPC proceedings: an infringement suit can be defeated by a successful revocation defense.
Viatris Santé v.Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharma France
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a procedural appeal concerning the admissibility of exhibits and submissions during infringement proceedings related to a pharmaceutical SPC. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling that it had become devoid of purpose because the underlying matter—the provisional measures application—had already been decided in favor of the appellant (Viatris). This highlights the importance of assessing legal interest when determining whether an action warrants adjudication under UPC rules.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
In a procedural order concerning revocation and infringement actions, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed IMI Hydronic Engineering's request for Belparts Group to provide security for costs. IMI argued that Belparts was economically vulnerable, citing losses in 2023. However, the court dismissed the request, emphasizing that the burden of proof rests on the applicant. The decision highlights the strict evidentiary requirements necessary to successfully obtain security for costs proceedings within the UPC framework.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V.
Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc., TP-Link Deutschland GmbH, TP-Link Enterprises France SARL, TP-LINK Enterprises Netherlands B.V., TP-Link Italia S.R.L., TP-LINK Enterprises Nordic AB, Lianzhou International Co., Ltd.
This UPC Board of Appeal decision addresses a procedural motion regarding document access in ongoing infringement and revocation proceedings involving Huawei and TP-Link concerning patent EP 3 678 321. TP-Link sought access to confidential documents, which the Local Division partially granted with a deadline. Huawei appealed this order, arguing against the disclosure. The Board of Appeal ultimately granted suspensive effect to Huawei's appeal, effectively halting the document disclosure until further review.
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 in its entirety. The patent, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid across several key member states. Consequently, all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like STADAPHARM were dismissed. This case highlights the vulnerability of patents facing prior national challenges and underscores the UPC's role in enforcing or nullifying IP rights.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation was based on prior findings of invalidity concerning the patent's scope and obviousness. Consequently, all associated infringement claims brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Reddy Pharma were dismissed. This decision underscores the powerful impact of national invalidation proceedings on UPC rights.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.Zentiva France
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 concerning the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation was based on prior invalidation proceedings in France, which demonstrated how national court decisions can directly impact patent validity within the unified system. Consequently, all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Zentiva were dismissed.
ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd
This UPC decision addressed a security for costs application filed by multiple defendants against ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., the claimant. The core issue revolved around the difficulty of enforcing cost judgments in Taiwan, where the claimant is based. Although the Defendants argued that enforcement risk was substantial due to Taiwanese legal uncertainties, the Court ultimately ordered ASUS to provide EUR 200,000 in security for costs. This ruling highlights the UPC's pragmatic approach to procedural fairness while balancing the need to protect parties against non-enforceable claims.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.Reddy Pharma SAS
In a significant ruling concerning pharmaceutical patents, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466. This patent covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel, which was marketed under the brand name JEVTANA by Sanofi. The revocation decision immediately dismissed all associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors like Reddy Pharma SAS. This case underscores the powerful effect of successful revocation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.Zentiva France
In a significant pharmaceutical case, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466 concerning the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The revocation decision effectively dismissed the concurrent infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic manufacturers like Zentiva. This ruling underscores the power of the UPC to enforce patent validity across multiple jurisdictions, even when national court decisions regarding invalidity are involved.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This UPC CFI decision addresses a procedural hurdle in an infringement case, specifically the successful completion of service against a defendant domiciled in China. The court found that despite multiple rejections by Chinese authorities due to minor formal issues, the claimant's attempts complied with The Hague Service Convention and UPC Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the court declared the service valid, allowing the substantive infringement proceedings to move forward without further delays.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
In a significant ruling for the pharmaceutical sector, the UPC Local Division Munich revoked European Patent 2 493 466, which covered a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. This decision immediately dismissed the associated infringement actions brought by Sanofi against generic competitors such as Stada and Dr Reddy's. The ruling underscores the vulnerability of patents, even those related to specific medical uses, when challenged successfully on grounds of invalidity.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH a.o.
Topsoe A/S sought an order for inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and two other entities in anticipation of a main infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 802 413 B1, which covers hydrogen production via steam methane reforming. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the strict procedural requirements under the UPC Agreement for obtaining evidence preservation before commencing full litigation.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a. o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
This interim conference in the UPC focused heavily on procedural matters for a complex infringement case involving Canon and Katun regarding developer supply containers. The court established clear deadlines, including December 18, 2025, for cost estimates and translations, while preparing detailed feature breakdowns of the claims for the upcoming oral hearing. This order signals that the parties are moving into the substantive phase, with the full panel set to decide on infringement and damages.
Maxell, Ltd. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Et al.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in The Hague addressed a dispute over the number of conditional amendments (Auxiliary Requests or ARs) filed by the claimant Maxell against Samsung. Samsung argued that 44 ARs were excessive and requested an extension to respond. The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the complexity was justified by the extensive invalidity attacks raised by Samsung and that the ARs effectively covered a limited set of core features. This ruling confirms the court's discretion in managing complex cases while maintaining procedural efficiency.
M-A-S Maschinen- und Anlagenbau Schulz GmbH v.Altech Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi
In this UPC decision, the court addressed both an infringement claim and a counterclaim for patent revocation concerning a plastic purification device. The court dismissed the infringement suit, emphasizing that remedies like recall or destruction are generally inapplicable in cases of indirect infringement. Crucially, the ruling set high standards for provisional damages claims, requiring plausible factual support, and clarified the burden of proof in revocation actions, demanding detailed explanations of prior art combinations rather than mere citation.
Amycel LLC v.Spyra
This UPC decision addressed an application by the Defendant (Spyra) to set aside a prior default judgment in an infringement action against Amycel LLC. The Court dismissed the R.356 application, finding that the procedural requirements for setting aside the default were not met due to earlier notices provided to the Defendant. Crucially, the Court also rectified the original Default-Decision, replacing the reference to Rule 356 with clear instructions on how and when an appeal could be lodged at the Court of Appeal.
Headwater Research LLC v.Apple Inc.
In a procedural decision, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC allowed both parties to withdraw their respective actions. Headwater Research LLC withdrew its infringement claim against Apple Inc., and in return, the Defendants agreed to withdraw their counterclaim seeking revocation of EP 3 107 243 B1. This case highlights how mutual agreement can lead to a swift closure of complex patent litigation proceedings within the UPC framework.
Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG v.Bhagat Textile Engineers
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a claim for damages and costs arising from patent infringement concerning textile machinery. The court confirmed that while the respondent was liable for infringement, it rejected the claimant's request for provisional damages based on reputational harm due to insufficient evidence. The ruling highlights the strict evidentiary requirements needed to prove non-economic damages in UPC proceedings.
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case, ALD France S.A.S challenged the validity of EP 3 083 107 B1 against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The respondent argued that the action was abusive and constituted double joinder due to organizational ties with a related company involved in parallel proceedings. The Central Division rejected these arguments, affirming ALD France's independent legal standing and upholding the principle that fragmented patent litigation is permissible under the UPC framework.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, HGSystem Holding ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, Infotech Holding ApS (collectively 'rekvisiti')
This UPC decision addressed a request for penalty payments related to evidence preservation in an infringement case concerning EP 4 238 202 B1. The Court found that the defendants significantly delayed providing crucial access codes and information, leading to a partial defeat of the evidence preservation purpose. Consequently, the court imposed a total fine of EUR 67,500 on the respondents.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In this UPC case, Roche sought provisional measures against Menarini regarding the infringement of its sandwich sensor patent (EP 1 962 668 B1), which covers implantable sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. While the main application for an injunction was dismissed, the court issued important legal guidelines concerning claim scope and territorial reach of manufacturing injunctions. The decision reinforces principles on how process claims interact with product claims and confirms that anti-infringement measures can apply even when production occurs outside the UPC contracting states.