European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 80 of 84 · 2,007 total
Speed Care Mineral GmbH v.Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC
This case concerns a request for discretionary review filed by Speed Care Mineral GmbH before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, challenging the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute for a Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Applicant argued that the value should have been set higher, at EUR 1,500,000, in accordance with the Administrative Committee's Guidelines. The Court of Appeal held the request admissible but dismissed it on the merits, finding that the Local Division had properly exercised its discretion given the short remaining duration of the patent and the size of the Applicant's company.
Infoblox Inc. and Others v.Nixu FL IP Protection LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1, the defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) applied under R. 158 RoP for an order requiring the claimant, Nixu FL IP Protection LLC, to provide security for costs. The defendants argued that Nixu was a recently incorporated litigation vehicle whose patent portfolio and all related income were pledged to a third party, rendering it economically assetless, and that enforcement of a UPC cost award in Florida would be uncertain. The Local Division Hamburg ordered Nixu to provide security of €200,000, finding that while Florida's recognition statutes did not justify security, Nixu's economic assetlessness due to the pledged patent portfolio did.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others
The Claimant, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, sought a two-week extension of its deadline under Rule 29(a) RoP to file its Reply to the Statement of Defence and Defence to the Counterclaim for revocation in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 016 464 B1 against several Xiaomi entities. The Defendants consented to the extension under the condition of reciprocity. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, extending the deadline only until 24 June 2026 (a weekend-adjusted extension) rather than the requested 6 July 2026, citing the need to preserve adequate preparation time for the oral hearing scheduled for 11 December 2026.
INSULET Corporation v.EOFLOW Co. Ltd
Cost decision of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division Milan) concerning INSULET Corporation's application for recovery of legal costs arising from EOFLOW's application for leave to appeal and related appellate proceedings regarding a penalty order. The Court found the application admissible and partially well-founded, awarding INSULET a total of EUR 14,000 in reasonable and proportionate legal costs, while dismissing the parties' confidentiality requests.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna Netherlands B.V. and Others
This is a Rule 105.5 procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2590626 B1, owned by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities. Following an interim conference, the judge-rapporteur issued orders streamlining the proceedings, limiting validity attacks and auxiliary requests, deciding on evidentiary objections, and scheduling the oral hearing for 1 September 2026.
Irdeto B.V. v.DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, Solectric GmbH
Irdeto B.V. brought an infringement action against DJI Europe B.V., DJI GmbH, and Solectric GmbH alleging that DJI drones and their controllers infringed EP 2 831 787 B1, which relates to methods for preventing security threats on electronic devices. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, ordering each party to bear their own costs.
Unparseable Case v.Ex Parte
The provided judgment text appears to be corrupted or encoded binary data and does not contain readable case information. No case title, parties, facts, or legal reasoning can be extracted from the input.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) issued an order addressing two R.220.2 RoP applications for leave to appeal filed by the represented defendants in three consolidated infringement actions concerning three Ericsson European patents. The court refused leave to appeal the order referring a preliminary objection to the main proceedings, but granted leave to appeal the confidentiality order setting a phased confidentiality regime for comparable licences in the FRAND/SEP context.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.The Walt Disney Company et al.
InterDigital VC Holdings sued multiple Walt Disney Company entities for alleged direct infringement of European patent EP 2 465 265, which relates to video encoding and decoding technology, targeting the Disney+ streaming service. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Mannheim found infringement of claims 1 and 15, granted injunctive relief, recall/removal orders, information disclosure, and declared the defendants jointly and severally liable for damages, while dismissing the counterclaim for revocation.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a stay of cost proceedings. Following the dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198 and SharkNinja's subsequent appeal, SEB filed an application for costs. Both parties agreed that the cost proceedings should be stayed until the Court of Appeal delivers its judgment, and the judge-rapporteur granted the stay in the interests of proper administration of justice.
Orange SA v.HMD Global Oy
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court following an interim conference in a patent infringement action (UPC_CFI_301/2025) and counterclaim (UPC_CFI_713/2025). Orange SA, as proprietor of European Patent EP2345029, sues HMD Global Oy for infringement, while HMD Global Oy has filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Judge-rapporteur set the total value in dispute at 3 million euros, scheduled oral hearings for 7-8 July 2026, and ordered the parties to address validity before infringement.
Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG v.VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH
This case before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerned European Patent No. 3 106 035, held by Albert Handtmann Maschinenfabrik GmbH & Co. KG, relating to a receiving basket for a lifting device used in food processing machines. Handtmann sued competitor VEMAG Maschinenbau GmbH for infringement regarding its vacuum filling machines 'DPnx' and 'HPnx', while VEMAG counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The court rendered a mixed decision, partially upholding the patent in amended form (auxiliary request 2) and partially finding it invalid, with costs split 20% to the claimant and 80% to the defendant.
Bostik, Inc. v.Henkel France, Henkel France Operations, Henkel Technologies France, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, Henkel Nederland B.V., and Henkel Italia S.r.l.
This is an order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 1 725 627 B1, owned by Bostik, Inc. Bostik alleges infringement by certain Henkel Liofol® products, while Henkel counterclaims for revocation of the patent. Following an interim conference, the judge-rapporteur issued an order addressing procedural matters, including Bostik's partial withdrawal, the value of the case, the definition of the skilled person, applications to exclude documents, and the schedule for the oral hearing.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. in the Milan Local Division, seeking an injunction based on EP 3 076 673 B1 relating to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology. The application was filed during ongoing main proceedings on the merits that had commenced in June 2024. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, finding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were nearing their final stages.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.C.P. Pharmaceuticals International C.V. et al.
This is a procedural order (R.105.5) issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Unified Patent Court, The Hague Local Division, in a patent infringement action brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Pfizer and BioNTech entities (collectively 'PBNT') concerning European Patent EP2590626. The order, issued following an interim conference, addresses procedural matters to streamline and prepare the case for the oral hearing scheduled for 1 September 2026, including decisions on the value of the case, the admission of late-filed exhibits, expert cross-examination, conditional counterclaims for revocation, and the allocation of pleading times.
Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag v.WEPA Nederland B.V (Review of Order for Preservation of Evidence)
Essity, proprietor of European patent EP 3 289 139 concerning tissue paper comprising Miscanthus pulp fibers, obtained an ex parte order for preservation of evidence against WEPA on 17 April 2026. WEPA sought review of that order under R. 197.3 RoP, arguing inter alia that the order improperly imposed obligations on employees to answer questions, that the time limit under R. 198.1 was unclear, and that the patent's validity was doubtful. The Local Division of The Hague confirmed the preservation order, finding no obligation to answer questions could be derived from it, that the time limit and consequences were sufficiently clear, and that urgency existed due to the risk of digital evidence being deleted and WEPA's group structure facilitating movement of evidence.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in appeals arising from proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg regarding EP 2 642 632. The Court of Appeal granted Nera's requests to disregard Xiaomi's late-filed expert opinion (Exhibit FBD-T38) and book excerpt (Exhibit FBD-T39), as well as Xiaomi's inventive step arguments based on D1, D2, and D4 that were raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH v.Moderna Inc. et al.
CureVac Manufacturing GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP4108769 concerning methods of producing and purifying RNA using tangential flow filtration (TFF), initiated infringement proceedings against 13 Moderna entities before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division The Hague. Alongside the main infringement action, CureVac filed an application under Rule 190 RoP seeking an order requiring Moderna to produce confidential manufacturing evidence (CTDs and technical data sheets). The Court dismissed the Rule 190 application as premature, finding it failed the necessity and proportionality requirements at this stage of the proceedings, but granted the parties' joint Rule 9.3 application aligning procedural deadlines for all defendants.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. & Others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This appeal concerns a confidentiality regime ordered by the Hague Local Division in FRAND-related patent infringement proceedings brought by Ericsson against Shenzhen Transsion and others regarding three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court of First Instance had the power to grant leave to appeal after the 15-day time limit under Rule 220.2/220.3 RoP had expired. The Court held that the CFI's late grant of leave to appeal did not alter the deemed refusal, but invited the parties to comment on whether the original request could be treated as including a request for discretionary review under Rule 220.3 RoP.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and Others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion entities against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality application in FRAND-related patent infringement proceedings involving three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court of First Instance had the power to grant leave to appeal after the 15-day time limit under R. 220.2/220.3 RoP had expired. The Court held that the CFI's later grant of leave did not alter the fact that leave was deemed refused due to the expiry of the time limit, and invited parties to comment on whether the original request could be treated as a request for discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning appeals filed by Shenzhen Transsion and related entities against a confidentiality order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by Ericsson relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology under a FRAND licence framework. The Court of Appeal considered whether the Court of First Instance had the power to grant leave to appeal after the 15-day time limit under R. 220.3 RoP had expired. The Court held that the CFI no longer had such power once the time limit expired, but noted that the appellants' request might be treated as including a request for discretionary review, and invited the parties to comment on this point.
Automobile Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
Automobile Dacia S.A. filed a revocation action against Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited concerning European Patent EP1903733 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court. After the Defendant filed its defence along with an application to amend the patent, and the Claimant filed its reply, the Claimant applied to withdraw the action pursuant to Rule 265 RoP. With the Defendant's consent and no final decision having been taken, the Court permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc. et al.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4344633 against Sinocare Inc. and multiple Menarini group entities and other defendants before the Local Division The Hague. The defendants filed a preliminary objection challenging the Court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and seeking to limit its territorial scope. Both parties suggested postponing the decision, and the judge-rapporteur deferred the preliminary objection to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 RoP.
La Siddhi Consultancy Ltd. v.Athena Pharmaceutiques SAS & Substipharm
This is a revocation action concerning European Patent No. 3 592 333 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Milan Seat). The claimant filed an application under Rule 262A RoP seeking to restrict access to the unredacted version of Exhibit MW21, a non-public agreement with a third party, to an 'attorneys' eyes only' confidentiality regime. The defendants sought broader access, including for their Head of Legal, Indian external legal advisers, and external experts. The Court granted a confidentiality regime but allowed access to the defendants' external representatives and two named natural persons, rejecting the requests for Indian counsel and external experts.