European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 82 of 84 · 2,007 total
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. v.Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, and Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd. sued Cybex GmbH, Cybex Retail GmbH, and Columbus Trading-Partners GmbH & Co. KG for infringement of European Patent EP 1 905 615, titled 'Swivell locking device for stroller wheel,' targeting various Cybex stroller models. The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to establish infringement by equivalent means of the relevant features, while the Defendants also failed to prove the patent was invalid.
Brita SE v.Wessper Sp. z o.o. (UPC_CFI_779/2024)
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendant's request for protective orders regarding confidential information in a patent infringement case concerning EP 1 748 830 B1. The defendant, Wessper Sp. z o.o., sought to classify information it was ordered to disclose under a prior infringement decision as confidential and to restrict access. The court held that while R. 262A RoP can apply analogously to such post-judgment disclosure, the defendant failed to justify why it did not raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings when it could reasonably have foreseen the disclosure obligation.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd et al.
This order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division The Hague) addresses a confidentiality application and procedural issues in three consolidated infringement actions brought by Ericsson against multiple defendants (including Transsion group entities and various retailers/distributors) concerning three standard essential patents (EP 2 712 236 B1, EP 3 836 631 B1, and EP 3 245 744 B1). The court established a phased confidentiality regime distinguishing between Confidential Correspondence (licence negotiations) and Ericsson Restricted Information (4G/5G comparable licences and proprietary market intelligence), initially restricting access to an 'external eyes only' regime. The court dismissed the Represented defendants' R.9.3 application seeking an extension of time for filing their technical statement of defence and their R.333 application.
Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd v.Grundfos Holding A/S (EP 2 778 423)
Appeal from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 778 423 relating to a heating circulation pump assembly. The Court of Appeal partially reversed the first instance decision, declaring claims 1-3, 5, and 11 of the patent invalid for lack of novelty and/or inventive step, while dismissing Grundfos's infringement claim. Costs were allocated with Grundfos bearing the costs of the infringement proceedings and 75% of the invalidity counterclaim costs.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG and Others
This case concerned European patent EP 3 651 429 before the Düsseldorf Local Division. Both the claimant (Avago Technologies) and the defendants (Renault entities) withdrew their respective infringement action and counterclaim for revocation on 12 May 2026, following an out-of-court settlement. The court permitted the withdrawals and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each party, applying the amended Rule 370.9 RoP that took effect on 1 January 2026, rather than the 60% rate requested.
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Limited
Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures before the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Hamburg) seeking a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction in connection with Dyson Technology Limited's allegations of patent infringement regarding new haircare appliances. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and subsequently signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the withdrawal of the remaining application, and closed the proceedings without a cost decision.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v.Oleading B.V. & Others (OPPO)
Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (The Hague Local Division) concerning the exchange of licenses and the establishment of a confidentiality club in an infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN N.V. against several OPPO entities regarding EP2337403 and EP3944587. The Court largely adopted the parties' agreed text, resolving two outstanding disputes: it rejected Oppo's request to extend the Statement of Defence deadline until full license disclosure, and it sided with Oppo in reducing the counterparty response time for in-house access applications from 10 to 5 working days.
TIRU v.VALINEA ENERGIE and MAGUIN SAS
TIRU, a French waste-to-energy company and subsidiary of the PAPREC Group, brought patent infringement actions against VALINEA ENERGIE (a VEOLIA Group subsidiary) and MAGUIN SAS based on European Patent EP 3 178 578 B1 concerning a waste incineration furnace. The Central Division had maintained the patent in modified form. The Local Division of Paris rejected all of TIRU's infringement claims (both literal and by equivalence), rejected VALINEA's counterclaim for abusive procedure, and ordered TIRU to pay EUR 100,000 in costs to each defendant.
Hybridgenerator ApS v.HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen
Hybridgenerator ApS, holder of European Patent EP 4 238 202 B1 concerning a mobile hybrid generator system, sued HGSystem ApS, Infotech Concept ApS, and Rune Eilertsen for infringement of its patent by the MPU 1000 and MPU 2000 hybrid generators. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division in Copenhagen found the patent invalid for lack of sufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step, dismissed all infringement claims, and ordered Hybridgenerator to pay the defendants' costs capped at EUR 112,000.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy v.Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd. et al.
Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy filed an infringement action (UPC_CFI_662/2025) against 32 defendants associated with the Geely Group concerning EP 3 799 333, and the defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_160/2026). Before the conclusion of the written proceedings, both parties mutually agreed to withdraw their respective claims. The Local Chamber Mannheim permitted the withdrawals, declared both proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% reimbursement of court fees to each side.
Shinkyung Inc. v.Boa Technology Inc. (UPC_CFI_998/2025)
Shinkyung Inc., a defendant in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 3 777 595 B1 before the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Düsseldorf, applied for security for costs of EUR 200,000 against the claimant Boa Technology Inc. (BOA), citing the alleged poor financial state of BOA's parent holding company CODI. BOA opposed the application, arguing its financial stability was independent of CODI's stock price and that it was financially well. The Judge-Rapporteur dismissed the application, holding that only the financial situation of the claimant BOA—not its non-party parent CODI—should be considered, and finding that BOA had demonstrated sufficient financial means.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH (UPC_CFI_714/2025)
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH filed a nullity action before the Central Division (Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking revocation of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8–11 of European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1, which relates to a fastening element made of wood and/or wood materials. The claimant alleged inadmissible extension, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court partially upheld the action, partially revoking the patent to the extent it extends beyond the subject matter of auxiliary request I, while maintaining claims 3, 4, 6, and 7 in their granted form, and ordered costs to be borne 70% by the defendant and 30% by the claimant.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. v.Sercomm Corporation, SerComm Deutschland GmbH, Sercomm France SARL, Sercomm Italia SRL
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action filed by Huawei Technologies against four Sercomm entities. The order, issued following an early interim hearing under Rule 105.5 RoP, sets dates for a further interim hearing and oral hearing, and addresses procedural matters including service, defense strategy, and potential separation of proceedings. The dispute concerns alleged indirect and direct infringement of European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1, which Huawei asserts is essential for WiFi6.
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd. v.SHENZHEN ASMAX INFINITE TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and HONG KONG YIHENG INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY Co. Limited
CARDO SYSTEMS Ltd., proprietor of European Patent EP 4 240 194 relating to a fastening device for head-protective gear, obtained a default judgment against Shenzhen Asmax and Hong Kong Yiheng for infringement of the patent through their Z1-ASMAX and F1-ASMAX products. After the defendants failed to file any defence or enter an appearance despite valid service, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Milan Local Division) granted injunctive relief, an interim award for damages of €56,000, and an interim award for costs of €28,000, jointly and severally against both defendants.
Fujifilm Corporation v.Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 3 476 616 (DE and UK designations) relating to lithographic/printing plates. Fujifilm had sued Kodak for patent infringement before the Mannheim Local Division, and Kodak counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance's revocation of the German designation, finding the patent valid and infringed by Kodak's Sonora plates, and granted extensive remedies including injunction, recall, destruction, and damages. For the UK designation, the Court of Appeal dismissed Fujifilm's appeal and held that the condition for Kodak's counterclaim for revocation was not fulfilled.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), Ericsson Holding International B.V., Ericsson Telecommunicatie B.V., Ericsson Telecomunicações, Lda.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against multiple Ericsson entities before the Lisbon Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. EP4123910. Before the filing of the Statement of Defence, the Claimant withdrew the action, and the Defendants agreed to the withdrawal. The Court granted the withdrawal, ordered each party to bear its own costs, allowed a 50% reimbursement of court fees, and released the EUR 100,000 security for costs.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG v.Inventronics GmbH
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. Before completion of the written procedure, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent. The court accepted the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial refund of court fees in the amount of EUR 9,500 to the plaintiff.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
Brita SE obtained an order from the Local Chamber Hamburg on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1, including a cease-and-desist obligation and an information disclosure obligation. After the defendant failed to comply with both obligations and waived its right to challenge the order, Brita sought renewed coercive measures. The court imposed a coercive fine of EUR 97,500 for continued advertising of the infringing embodiment on the defendant's websites and EUR 105,000 for continued non-compliance with the information order, while threatening further daily fines.
CA, Inc. v.Deutsche Telekom AG, T-Systems International GmbH, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning a confidentiality request in an infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 934 794 B1. The court partially granted the defendants' request for protection of confidential information under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure, classifying sales figures, infrastructure details, and internal technical/commercial information as confidential, but denying protection for customer names and customer information that were already publicly available.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO Beograd, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court, Division Locale de Paris, concerning a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. The order addresses Valeo's requests to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain AeroTwin APX products, withdrawing claims against Belgian and German territories, and withdrawing all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Productie). The court granted all of Valeo's requests, finding no legitimate interest for Bosch Productie to oppose the withdrawal, and declined to rule on costs at this stage.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS v.Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding an application for withdrawal of an action for provisional measures. InterDigital, which had obtained ex parte preliminary measures against Amazon from the Mannheim Local Division, applied to withdraw its application for provisional measures with Amazon's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, finding no need for a cost decision since both parties agreed not to seek reimbursement of costs.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had found that EP 2 352 431 (relating to a breast tomosynthesis system) was infringed and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The appellants (Siemens entities) sought suspensive effect, arguing the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding no manifest error and no violation of the right to be heard.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order concerns three appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court, in which the appellants (Shenzhen Transsion and related entities) sought to withdraw their appeals against a confidentiality order issued by the Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings brought by Ericsson concerning three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals and sought reimbursement of 50% of the court fees, with Ericsson's consent.
PIRELLI TYRE S.P.A. v.SICHUAN YUANXING RUBBER CO., LTD.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.