European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 81 of 84 · 2,007 total
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd & Others
BMSI filed an infringement action against nine BYD entities before the Local Division The Hague of the UPC concerning patent EP3393001. BYD filed a Preliminary Objection challenging international jurisdiction over three defendants: Chinese-based BYD Company and BYD Auto, and UK-based BYD UK. The court ruled it has no jurisdiction over BYD UK since its alleged infringing acts are confined to UK territory with no connection to UPC territory, but held that the long-arm jurisdiction objection regarding BYD Company and BYD Auto for alleged UK infringement should be addressed in the main proceedings.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. and Others
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of an order by the Munich Local Division requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Xiaomi entities. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, rejected the request for discretionary review as not demonstrating manifest error, and also rejected the application for suspensive effect as having become devoid of purpose.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Xiaomi Inc. et al.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1. The court ordered the joint hearing of two infringement actions and two corresponding counterclaims for revocation involving Advanced Standard Communication LLC as claimant and multiple Xiaomi entities as defendants. The first infringement action (UPC_CFI_617/2024) concerned the use of the 4G standard, while the second (UPC_CFI_1321/2025) concerned the 5G standard, with the court finding efficiency and consistency considerations warranted consolidation.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A.
Occlutech GmbH sought enforcement of a cease-and-desist order against Lepu Medical entities for infringement of European Patent EP 2 387 951 relating to braided occlusion devices. The Hamburg Local Division found Lepu in non-compliance through three channels: a disclaimer-free product advertisement on its company website, a MedicalExpo B2B platform listing, and direct email communications seeking European distributors. The Court ordered Lepu to pay a total penalty of EUR 58,800 and imposed a recurring penalty of up to EUR 1,500 per day for any further non-compliance.
Ambaflex International B.V. v.Patent Proprietor of EP 2743216
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action on December 30, 2025, seeking full annulment of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. Before any substantive decision, the parties reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity action on May 6, 2026. The patent proprietor accepted the withdrawal, and the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court formally noted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S.
A patent infringement action concerning EP 2 218 491 B1 was filed by Avago Technologies against three Renault entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the value in dispute at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS) and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Division Paris concerning a costs application filed by SEB following the dismissal of SharkNinja's application for provisional measures based on EP 3 689 198. The order addresses confidentiality requests regarding redacted information in SEB's costs application and exhibits, grants an exemption from translating certain French documents into English, and sets deadlines for further written submissions on costs and the question of a stay pending appeal.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendants' consent, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the value in dispute at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered the reimbursement of 50% of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Eyesmatch Ltd v.Google Ireland Limited & Google Commerce Limited (EP 4 184 443 B1)
Procedural order from the Local Division Mannheim of the Unified Patent Court concerning European patent EP 4 184 443 B1. The court found the Claimant's estimated value of the infringement action (2,000,000 euros) manifestly too low given that the alleged infringement concerned the Defendants' mobile or computing devices across all 18 UPC Contracting Member States, and provisionally set the value at 4,000,000 euros. Both parties raised no objections, and the Claimant was ordered to pay an additional value-based court fee of 17,200 euros.
SharkNinja Operating LLC v.Groupe SEB France, S.A.S. SEB, SEB International Service (SIS), and Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
This case arose from SharkNinja's appeal of a Paris Local Division decision dismissing its application for provisional measures against SEB concerning EP 3 689 198. SharkNinja filed a request under R. 262A RoP to protect certain commercial market data as confidential, while SEB raised procedural objections regarding unsigned filings and requested extensions of time. The Court of Appeal addressed issues of electronic signature requirements under R. 4.1 RoP, retroactive extension of time periods under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and the scope of confidentiality protection, ultimately granting partial confidentiality protection with access limited to four named SEB employees.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3407524. The order amends the dates for the Oral Hearing, scheduling it for 9-11 September 2026, and sets a deadline of 21 July 2026 for the parties' representatives to file summary submissions of a maximum of 50 pages.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL, Vivo Tech GmbH, and Vivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This is a procedural order issued by the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action brought by Sun Patent Trust against three Vivo entities concerning European Patent EP3852468. The order amends the dates for the Oral Hearing, scheduling it for 9–11 September 2026 in Paris, and sets a deadline of 21 July 2026 for the parties' representatives to file summary submissions of a maximum of 50 pages.
Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy v.Microsoft Corporation
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision by default against Suinno, the appellant and patent proprietor, for its failure to provide security for costs (EUR 600,000) ordered in the appeal proceedings concerning the revocation of EP 2 671 173. The Court held that R. 355.2 RoP does not apply when a default decision is requested against the appellant, as the appellant is regarded as the claimant in appeal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and Suinno was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and Others
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings filed an infringement action against Ericsson entities regarding European Patent EP4123910 (EP 910) in the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. Ericsson sought to strike out Transsion's claims for injunctive relief under Rules 360 and 361 of the Rules of Procedure, arguing that the claims were devoid of purpose or manifestly bound to fail because parallel proceedings in The Hague concerning a FRAND-compliant worldwide cross-licence would encompass EP 910. The Court dismissed Ericsson's strike-out application, holding that the action had not become devoid of purpose and that the case was not a clear-cut matter suitable for manifest inadmissibility, as it required a full assessment of facts, law, and evidence.
Hurom Co., Ltd. v.NUC Electronics Co., Ltd (UPC_CoA_0916/2025)
Hurom Co., Ltd. filed an appeal against a decision of the Mannheim Local Division concerning alleged infringement of EP 2 028 981 by NUC Electronics in Poland, Spain, and the UK. Following a related Court of Appeal decision in parallel cases, Hurom applied to withdraw the appeal and sought reimbursement of court fees. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, ordered Hurom to bear NUC's costs in both instances, and granted a 50% reimbursement of appeal court fees plus reimbursement of overpaid fees.
Xingi Technology CO., Ltd. and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji High-Performance Fiber Products Co., Ltd. v.Avient Protective Materials B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially granted an application for suspensive effect filed by Xingi Technology and Jiangsu Jiuzhou Xingji against an order of The Hague Local Division requiring them to produce UD fabric samples and a company introduction video under Rule 190 RoP. The appellants argued that compliance within the two-week deadline was impossible due to Chinese military-grade export control regulations requiring 1-2 months to obtain permits. The Court extended the compliance deadline to 15 July 2026 while rejecting the appellants' other arguments regarding procedural violations and manifest errors.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court against Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd. (SYR) concerning European Patent EP 3 519 207 B1, titled "motorcycles tyre," relating to a motorcycle tyre offering high road and off-road performance. Pirelli alleged that SYR's Helios HA-51R and HA-51F tyre models infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court found SYR had infringed the patent by offering and placing the infringing tyres on the market in several Contracting Member States, and ordered injunctive relief, publication, penalties, and damages in favor of Pirelli.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) and Others
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. brought patent infringement proceedings against Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP4123910. Ericsson applied for security for costs under Article 69(4) UPCA and R. 158 RoP, arguing that enforcement of any costs order against Transsion, a Chinese-domiciled claimant with no EU presence, would be unduly burdensome. The Court granted the application in part, ordering Transsion to provide security of EUR 100,000 within 21 days, representing 50% of the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. v.Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. brought a patent infringement action against Tianjin Kingtyre Group Co., Ltd before the Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2519412 for motorcycle tires. After Tianjin Kingtyre failed to enter an appearance within the three-month deadline following service of the statement of claim, Pirelli sought a default decision under Rule 355 RoP. The court granted the default decision, finding literal infringement of the patent and ordering injunctive relief, penalties, publication, and cost reimbursement.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC and Others
Advanced Standard Communication LLC (ASC) sought discretionary review of a Munich Local Division order requiring it to provide security for costs in its patent infringement action against Motorola Mobility entities and Lenovo. The Court of Appeal rejected the request, finding it admissible but not meritorious, as ASC failed to demonstrate that the impugned order was manifestly erroneous.
BYD Group entities v.BMS Innovations, LLC (UPC_CFI_2070/2025)
This procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerns BYD's application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP in an infringement action brought by BMS Innovations, LLC regarding European Patent EP2937706. The court ordered BMSI to provide security of EUR 300,000 (50% of the EUR 600,000 ceiling for recoverable costs) within one month, to be deposited into the UPC's dedicated security account, with a warning that default judgment may be issued if security is not provided.
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH (Application for Access to Register) – UPC_CoA_39/2026 v.Ex Parte
Anker Innovations Deutschland GmbH applied to the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court for access to the submissions and annexes exchanged in three concluded appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_534/2024, UPC_CoA_19/2025, and UPC_CoA_683/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997, in which Philips sued Belkin for patent infringement and Belkin counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal granted the application, holding that since the proceedings were finally concluded and no confidentiality requests under R. 262.2 RoP had been filed, the balancing of interests favored granting access to all submissions and annexes, subject only to the redaction of personal data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH (UPC_CFI_860/2025)
This is a Rule 105 procedural order from the Central Division (Milan) of the Unified Patent Court in a nullity action concerning European Patent No. 2223589. The order summarizes an interim hearing held on 13.05.2026, addressing representation, value in dispute, costs, admissibility, late-filed citations, and the structure of auxiliary requests ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 09.07.2026. The court provided preliminary views, indicating that the action is likely admissible, that D1 may be novelty-destroying for feature 2.3.2, that attacks based on K7-K11 appear unpromising, and that auxiliary request 1 may succeed.
BMS Innovations, LLC v.BYD Company Ltd et al.
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) ruled on BYD's application under Rule 158 RoP for security for costs in an infringement action concerning EP3393001. The court ordered BMS Innovations, LLC (BMSI) to provide security of EUR 350,000 for BYD's legal costs and expenses, to be furnished within four weeks of service of the order, failing which a default decision may be issued under Rule 355 RoP.