European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 8 of 84 · 2,007 total
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH and Others
GXD-Bio Corporation, the registered owner of European Patent EP 3 346 403 concerning a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene, sued multiple Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific for patent infringement relating to the EndoPredict test. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, and GXD-Bio sought to amend the patent via three auxiliary claim requests. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent, dismissed the amendment application, and dismissed the infringement action, finding that the EndoPredict test did not infringe because it uses three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) for normalization rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. concerning EP 2 593 025 B1, which was executed at the Defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf. After the expert delivered its detailed description, the Defendant had not logged into the CMS despite having received an access code, preventing it from commenting on confidentiality interests. The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description to the Applicant, lifting the confidentiality order, as the Defendant bore the responsibility to appoint a UPC representative to access the CMS.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd to provide security for costs of EUR 75,000 in each of two appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_622/2025 and UPC_CoA_623/2025) brought against Grundfos Holding A/S. The court held that under Art. 69(4) EPGÜ, only the respondent to an appeal (Berufungsbeklagter) is entitled to request security for costs, and that the risk of enforcement difficulties in China justified the order.
Centripetal Limited v.Palo Alto Networks, Inc.
Centripetal Limited sued Palo Alto Networks, Inc. for direct and indirect infringement of the German and French parts of European Patent No. EP 3 652 914 B1, relating to methods and systems for accelerating cyberanalysis workflows. Palo Alto Networks counterclaimed for revocation, challenging sufficiency of disclosure, novelty, and inventive step. The Mannheim Local Division found the counterclaim for revocation well-founded, revoked the patent entirely in France and Germany, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, ordering Centripetal to bear the costs.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content, facts, legal arguments, reasoning, or decision available for analysis.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerns HMD Global Oy's request under Rule 190 RoP for Fraunhofer to disclose various MPEG-4/AAC patent license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering Fraunhofer to produce its currently in-force bilateral AAC Patent License Agreement with a third party under strict confidentiality protections, but declined to order production of five expired license agreements and another terminated agreement as not currently justified.
GXD-Bio Corporation v.Myriad International GmbH a.o.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Munich) revoked European Patent EP 3 346 403, which claimed a method for quantifying gene expression in FFPE breast cancer tissue samples using OAZ1 as an endogenous reference gene. The court dismissed the infringement action brought by GXD-Bio Corporation against the Myriad entities and Eurobio Scientific concerning the EndoPredict test, finding that the attacked embodiment did not infringe because it normalized expression using three reference genes (CALM2, OAZ1, and RPL37A) rather than OAZ1 alone as required by claim 1.
UERAN Technology LLC v.Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH, Xiaomi Technology France S.A.S., Xiaomi Technology Italy S.R.L., Xiaomi Technology Sweden AB, Romania Xiaomi Communication Technology S.R.L.
The provided text contains only digital signatures of three individuals dated December 19, 2025, with no substantive judgment content. No facts, arguments, reasoning, or outcome can be extracted from the available text.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerning a defendant's request under R. 190 RoP for the disclosure of licensing agreements related to the Claimant's MPEG-4/AAC standard-essential patent portfolio. The Defendant sought production of five expired bilateral license agreements and two current license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering the Claimant to produce the current AAC Patent License Agreement with [..] under strict confidentiality protections, while declining to order production of the expired agreements at the current stage of proceedings.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock (HK) Limited
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf revoked an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order that had been issued in favor of Ecovacs Robotics against Roborock (HK) Limited concerning European Patent EP 3 808 512 B1. The court found that Ecovacs had breached Rule 192.3 RoP by providing incomplete and misleading submissions, as it had failed to present any technical facts showing that the accused robot vacuum cleaners practiced the patent claims. The order was set aside with ex-tunc effect, except for the confidentiality provisions, and Ecovacs was ordered to bear the costs of the inspection.
Docket Navigator v.Sumi Agro Limited, Sumi Agro Europe Limited and Syngenta Limited
Docket Navigator, a US-based patent litigation intelligence platform, requested access to written pleadings and evidence from concluded UPC Court of Appeal proceedings between Syngenta and Sumi Agro, intending to make these documents available to its subscribers. Both Sumi Agro and Syngenta objected, citing copyright concerns, pending rehearing proceedings, and the commercial nature of Docket Navigator's platform. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, holding that copyright is not a general interest protected under Art. 45 UPCA and that granting access to a company intending to redistribute documents to subscribers would compromise the proper conduct of proceedings.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. sought provisional measures against Andreas Rentmeister e.K. and Shenzhen Moan Technology Co., Ltd. for alleged infringement of EP 3 835 965 B1, a patent relating to logic circuitry for replaceable print apparatus components. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted a preliminary injunction against both defendants, with Defendant 1 having reached a settlement and not defending against most motions, and Defendant 2 having failed to file any objection despite being served through the Chinese Central Authority.
Polidoro S.p.a. v.Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and NV Bekaert SA
Polidoro S.p.a., the proprietor of European Patent EP 2 037 175 concerning a premixed burner, sued Bekaert Combustion Technology B.V. and its parent company NV Bekaert SA for patent infringement regarding two types of premixed burners of the 'Multipat' series. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claim 1 as granted (B1) and claim 1 as maintained in limited form (B2), dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, recall/removal/destruction, and information, with costs split 75% to defendants and 25% to the claimant.
IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH v.Belparts Group N.V.
This procedural order concerns a request by IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH for Belparts Group N.V. to provide security for costs in the amount of EUR 500,000 under Rule 158.1 RoP in proceedings involving a revocation action, application to amend a patent, and counterclaim for infringement regarding EP3812870. IMI argued Belparts was economically vulnerable based on a 2023 loss, while Belparts countered with evidence of positive financial results, a sizable patent portfolio, and a binding assurance from its parent group company AFRISO-WERK Georg Fritz GmbH & Co. KG. The Court of First Instance dismissed the request, finding IMI failed to meet its burden of substantiation and proof.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.TP-Link Systems Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for inspection of files under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. TP-Link sought access to redacted pleadings from infringement proceedings between Huawei and Netgear concerning EP 3 678 321, arguing a legitimate interest as Huawei was suing them for infringement of the same patent. The Local Chamber Munich partially granted TP-Link's request, prompting Huawei to appeal and seek suspensive effect to prevent disclosure before the appeal could be decided.
XXX v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. / MicroTech Medical (Hangzhou) Co. Ltd., et al.
An unnamed applicant sought access to the case file of UPC_CFI_830/2025, a provisional measures action brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. against MicroTech Medical and six other defendants concerning EP 3960072. The applicant claimed to represent an unnamed competitor in the continuous glucose measurement (CGM) device field needing a freedom-to-operate analysis. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) denied the application, finding the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficiently specific interest to override the integrity of the fast-tracked proceedings.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
This case concerned European Patent 2,493,466, held by Sanofi SA, relating to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel for treating prostate cancer. Sanofi filed infringement actions against STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva entities for marketing generic versions of its JEVTANA product, while the defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The Local Division Munich revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs.
Sanofi SA as successor of Sanofi Mature IP a.o. v.STADAPHARM GmbH a.o.
Sanofi and related entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (Stada, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety, finding the claimed subject-matter lacked inventive step over prior art describing Phase III clinical trials with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions accordingly.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, Zentiva France and others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of novelty and inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Sanofi SA and Others v.STADAPHARM GmbH and Others
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy's, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which covers the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, dismissed the infringement actions, and ordered Sanofi to bear the costs of both the counterclaims and the infringement proceedings.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Yiheng International Technology Co., Limited
This order from the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed the issue of service of process on Shenzhen Asmax Infinite Technology Co., Ltd., a defendant domiciled in China, in a patent infringement action concerning EP 4 240 194. Service attempts via the Hague Service Convention were rejected twice by the Chinese central authority on the formal ground that the documents did not use the full name 'Hong Kong, China' when referring to Hong Kong. The court held that Article 15(2) of the Hague Service Convention is fully applicable in the UPC system and declared the steps already taken to constitute valid service, ordering publication of the order on the court's website.
Sanofi SA v.STADAPHARM GmbH, Reddy Pharma SAS, and Zentiva France
The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court revoked European Patent 2,493,466 in its entirety in consolidated proceedings involving three sets of defendants (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) who had filed counterclaims for revocation against Sanofi's infringement actions. The patent, which relates to the anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel (marketed as JEVTANA), was found invalid for lack of inventive step. Consequently, all three infringement actions were dismissed, and Sanofi was ordered to bear the costs of both the revocation counterclaims and the infringement actions.
Sanofi SA and other Sanofi entities v.STADAPHARM GmbH and other STADA entities, Reddy Pharma SAS and other Dr. Reddy entities, and Zentiva France and other Zentiva entities
Multiple Sanofi entities filed patent infringement actions against three groups of generic pharmaceutical companies (STADA, Dr. Reddy, and Zentiva) before the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent 2,493,466, which relates to a novel anti-tumoral use of cabazitaxel. The defendants filed counterclaims for revocation. The court revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step, finding that the skilled person would have had a reasonable expectation of success based on prior art describing a Phase III clinical trial with cabazitaxel, and dismissed the infringement actions.