European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 83 of 84 · 2,007 total
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding a confidentiality order issued by The Hague Local Division in underlying infringement proceedings involving three European patents related to 4G LTE and 5G NR technology in the context of a FRAND licence dispute. After the parties reached a settlement providing for termination of the appeal proceedings by withdrawal of the underlying CFI proceedings, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural treatment of conditional counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal clarified that making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible, and provided guidance on how the counterclaimant should proceed if the infringement claimant appeals a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.Acer Computer GmbH, CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.L, Acer Computer B.V, Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request by the Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, for the production of evidence and a confidentiality regime under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure. The Claimant sought an order compelling a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements relating to the Opus standard, which incorporates the patent in suit (EP2304723), in order to respond to the Defendants' FRAND defense. Both the Defendants and the third party consented to the request, and the Court granted the order, establishing a 'Highly Confidential Information' regime with restricted access.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others
This order of the Court of Appeal concerns three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) brought by Shenzhen Transsion against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's application for confidentiality measures in underlying infringement proceedings relating to three European patents in the field of 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals, and Ericsson consented. The Court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning confidentiality requests and a change of language of proceedings in a patent infringement appeal. Fives ECL appealed the first instance decision dismissing its infringement claim against REEL GmbH regarding EP 1 740 740. The Court of Appeal granted a confidentiality order restricting access to certain business information, changed the language of proceedings from German to English, and conditionally approved the addition of a former employee to the confidentiality circle.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH, Cisco Systems, Inc.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. After the Local Division Hamburg dismissed Lionra's infringement action and Cisco's revocation counterclaim, Lionra appealed. Before the oral hearing, the parties settled and Lionra withdrew its appeal with Cisco's consent. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, deemed the cross-appeal withdrawn, and terminated the proceedings. However, it rejected Lionra's request for a 20% reimbursement of court fees, holding that the amended Rule 370.9 RoP (effective January 1, 2026) applied to the withdrawal request filed on July 6, 2026, which no longer provides for such reimbursement.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC filed an application for provisional measures against MGI entities alleging infringement of four European patents relating to 'Cyclone Devices'. After the judge-rapporteur set a deadline of 24 July 2026 for MGI to file its objection, Respondent 1 (MGI TECH GmbH) sought an extension of that deadline. The judge-rapporteur rejected the extension request, finding that more than two weeks from service was sufficient given the respondents' prior awareness of the patents from parallel Australian proceedings and Oxford's withdrawal of two of the four patents.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures (injunction) against ASUSTeK and Arvato in the Milan Local Division, related to ongoing main proceedings concerning EP 3 076 673 B1 (a video coding/HEVC patent). The application was filed after the main proceedings on the merits had commenced, with Ericsson citing delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and the launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new, different, and supervening factual circumstances that would justify interim relief when the main proceedings were already in their final stages.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a confidentiality request filed by Fives ECL in its appeal against a decision of the Local Chamber Hamburg. The underlying dispute involves Fives' claim for damages based on alleged infringement of EP 1 740 740 by REEL GmbH, which was dismissed at first instance for insufficient evidence of lost profits and causation. The Court of Appeal provisionally restricted access to certain grey-highlighted information in the appeal brief and newly submitted annexes to REEL's authorized UPC representatives, pending REEL's response to the confidentiality request.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ARVATO NETHERLANDS B.V.
Ericsson filed an application for provisional measures against ASUSTeK and Arvato in connection with EP 2727342 B1, a patent related to HEVC/H.265 video coding technology, during the final stages of pending main proceedings on the merits before the Milan Local Division. Ericsson argued urgency based on delays in the main proceedings, recent German court decisions against ASUSTeK, and ASUSTeK's launch of new allegedly infringing products. The Court dismissed the application for lack of urgency, holding that Ericsson failed to demonstrate new or supervening factual circumstances warranting interim relief beyond the temporal aggravation inherent in awaiting a final decision on the merits.
Advanced Standard Communication LLC v.Motorola Mobility LLC, Motorola Mobility International Sales LLC, Lenovo (Deutschland) GmbH, Motorola Mobility Germany GmbH
This order from the Local Division Munich concerns a patent infringement action regarding European Patent EP 3 016 464 B1, where the Defendants sought to classify certain information in their Rejoinder and document production requests as Confidential or Highly Confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP. The Claimant requested that an external expert from Ankura Consulting Group LLC and his entire team be granted access to the highly confidential information. The Court granted confidentiality protections and restricted access to the highly confidential information to the Claimant's UPC representatives, its manager Jeremy Pitcock, and one named expert from Ankura, with the Claimant reserving the right to name two additional team members.
Cardo Systems, Ltd. v.Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd. and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to occlusion devices for closing septal defects. The Düsseldorf Local Division had rejected Occlutech's application, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders comprised a braiding of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Attacked Embodiments do infringe claim 1 of the Patent, and granted the provisional measures ordering Lepu to cease offering, marketing, using, importing, or possessing the infringing products in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
Illumina, Inc. v.Element Biosciences, Inc, Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA
This is a procedural order from the Lisbon Local Division of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action filed by Illumina, Inc. against Element Biosciences, Inc., Element Biosciences Netherlands B.V., and I.L.C. - Instrumentos de Laboratório e Científicos LDA concerning European Patent No. EP3714978. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The court ordered that the infringement action and counterclaim be heard together, scheduled an interim conference for 16 October 2026, and set the oral hearing for 17 December 2026.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by several Robert Bosch entities against an order of the Paris Local Division that had dismissed their preliminary objections to jurisdiction. The court held that the conditions of Article 33(1)(b) UPCA—commercial connection between defendants and the same alleged infringement—were satisfied, as membership in the same corporate group could establish a commercial connection and the alleged infringing wiper blade products (sold under MOPAR, BYD, and AEROTWIN brands) appeared substantially the same in structure and dimensions.
Evac Oy v.Shanghai VacDrain Vaccuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, Herrn Yong Cao
Evac Oy, a Finnish company, brought an infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf against Shanghai VacDrain Vacuum Drainage Equipment Co., Ltd., VD Solutions GmbH, and Mr. Yong Cao concerning European Patents EP 1 840 282 B1 and EP 1 813 734 B1, both relating to vacuum sewer systems. The court addressed the applicability of the five-year limitation period under Article 72 UPCA, holding that it applies only to financial compensation claims and not to injunctive relief, which is forward-looking. The court found infringement of EP 1 840 282 B1 by Defendants 1 and 3, granted injunctive relief, recall and destruction orders, and ordered the defendants to pay damages, with costs split 70/30 in favor of the defendants.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage v.Robert Bosch France SAS, Robert Bosch GmbH, Robert Bosch SA, Robert Bosch Produktie SA, Robert Bosch DOO Beograd, Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) CO., LTD.
ORDONNANCE
Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. v.SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
This case concerns an action for revocation of European Patent EP 2 643 717 ('Farbmischende Sammeloptik'), relating to a color and light mixing collecting optic for full-color pixels in outdoor display panels, spotlights, or signaling. The plaintiff and intervener (Chainzone Technology) sought full revocation on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, inadmissible extension, and insufficient disclosure. During the proceedings, the defendant (SWARCO) limited the patent before the EPO by deleting the word 'insbesondere' from claim 1. The Central Chamber Paris of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the revocation action and maintained the patent in its limited form, ordering the plaintiff and intervener to bear the costs.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court (Local Division Paris) in an infringement action brought by KEEEX SAS based on European patent EP2949070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI, TruePic, and C2PA-related entities. The defendants sought to strike certain arguments, evidence, and a new patent amendment request from KEEEX's memorandum of June 5, 2026, as inadmissible and tardy. The judge-rapporteur largely granted the defendants' requests, striking most new infringement arguments and the new amendment request, while permitting limited additional submissions under Rule 36 RoP on specific points.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
LABS v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.
This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.
Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd, OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTech Italia s.r.l., Realme Germany GmbH v.ASUS Technology Licensing Inc.
OPPO filed a unified submission on 3 June 2026 in the infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_525/2025) that was intended to also cover the parallel revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_2022/2025) concerning European patent EP 3 346 616, but inadvertently only uploaded it to the infringement workflow. After the Court encouraged OPPO to file the submission in the correct revocation workflow, OPPO did so on 13 June 2026 and applied under Rule 9 RoP for confirmation that the time limit had been duly complied with. The Court confirmed that the time limit for filing the Reply to the Counterclaim for revocation had been duly complied with, treating the late upload as a mere technical correction.