European UPC IP Litigation
2,007 annotated decisions
Page 84 of 84 · 2,007 total
Valeo Electrification v.SEG Automotive Germany GmbH, SEG Automotive Spain, S.A.U., SEG Automotive France SAS, Ferdinando Sorrentino, Gustavo Henrique Baldussi Ferreira, Claudio Ishamu Nakao, Frank Ahlborn
This order concerns an application to intervene filed by KSR International Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Automotive Technical Advisory Service GmbH in patent infringement proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification against SEG Automotive entities and individual officers concerning EP 3 157 142. The Interveners had collaborated with Defendant 1 in 2018–2019 on developing an inverter for the accused 'BRM 2.8' 48V e-machines and sought to intervene in support of the Defendants to avoid potential future recourse claims. The Düsseldorf Local Division admitted the Interveners, finding they had a direct and present legal interest, and aligned their deadline for filing a statement in intervention with the Defendants' deadline for filing their statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation, set at 16 July 2026.
Dall Energy ApS v.Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik GmbH
This appeal concerned an order for the production of evidence issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Copenhagen Local Division in patent infringement proceedings involving EP 2 334 762, which relates to a method for producing clean hot gas from solid fuel. The Court of Appeal held that while the Court of First Instance did not err in principle in ordering disclosure under Article 59 UPCA and Rule 190 RoP, it exceeded the limits of its discretion by ordering an overly broad scope of disclosure. The order was set aside in part and replaced with a more limited measure confined to construction drawings and operation and maintenance manuals relating to the Polyheld furnace at the Oberpullendorf site.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
TRUMPF Laser UK Limited v.IPG Laser GmbH & Co. KG
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application by IPG Laser to withdraw its appeal against a decision of the Local Division Mannheim in a patent infringement action involving EP 2 951 625. The Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees (€21,145) to IPG Laser, rejecting the request for a full refund.
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v.ANCA Europe GmbH
This case concerns an application by OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for inspection and evidence preservation (Inspektion und Beweissicherung) against ANCA Europe GmbH in connection with European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1. The inspection was executed at ANCA's trade fair stand at the 'GrindingHub' trade fair in Stuttgart in May 2026, and an expert subsequently prepared a detailed description of the findings. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the applicant, as the respondent did not assert any confidentiality interests regarding the information contained therein.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, proprietor of European Patent 3 443 066 (EP'066) relating to methods for detecting cancer via cfDNA sequencing, sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics companies for offering the MSK-ACCESS® powered with SOPHIA DDM™ test. The Paris Local Division rejected the application, finding EP'066 likely invalid for added matter and ordering Guardant to pay EUR 400,000 in interim costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal largely upheld the rejection but reduced the interim costs award to EUR 300,000, declared Sophia's cross-appeal inadmissible, and ordered Guardant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC
This order concerns the enforcement of a decision dated 6 May 2026 in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Claimant) and Asustek Computer Inc (Defendant) concerning European Patent No EP 2 819 131 B1. On 15 June 2026, the Claimant notified the Court pursuant to Rule 118.8 RoP of its intention to enforce the decision, and the Defendant raised no objection. The Local Division in Lisbon acknowledged that the Claimant had complied with Rule 118.8 RoP in respect of the orders of the decision in their entirety, with effect from 15 June 2026.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request for penalty payments under Art. 82 UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP following a preliminary injunction of 12 February 2026 that had been imposed on five of the six Defendants for infringing EP 4 346 690 B1 through their 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2) with its 'Live Now' feature. The Court found that the Defendants' User Manual available on their website constituted an 'offering' within the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA for a duration of 33 days, but that the Instagram and Facebook posts did not constitute such an offering. A penalty payment of EUR 49,500 was imposed, costs were split 50/50, and leave to appeal was granted.
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v.Roborock
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 808 512 B1, where Ecovacs Robotics (Claimant) sought production of source code and pseudo code extracts from Roborock (Defendant) under Rule 190 RoP. The Court dismissed the production of documents request, finding that Claimant failed to identify specific contested facts and that the request was premature given Defendant had already provided substantiated defence arguments. The Court granted a partial 10-day extension of time limits for Claimant to file its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, setting the deadline to 2 September 2026, while reserving decisions on Defendant's confidentiality requests.
Promosome LLC v.BioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, Pfizer, Inc.
Promosome LLC brought an infringement action before the Local Division Munich against BioNTech and Pfizer entities concerning European patent EP 2 401 365, directed at mRNA technology used in the Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine. The Defendants filed counterclaims for revocation against Promosome and the patent proprietor, The Scripps Research Institute. The Court revoked the patent in its entirety for Germany, France, and Sweden, dismissed the application to amend the patent, and dismissed the infringement action, with costs borne by the unsuccessful parties.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute v.Meta Platforms, Inc.
Procedural order from the Local Division Düsseldorf concerning European patent EP 3 258 692 B1. The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings because they had reached an amicable settlement in out-of-court negotiations that still required implementation. The court granted the stay under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the parties to update the court by 10 August 2026 if they had not withdrawn their respective actions.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v.Academy of Military Medical Sciences
This is a cost decision by the Milan Central Division of the Unified Patent Court following Gilead's success in revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_552/25) concerning EP3854403. Gilead sought EUR 800,000 in recoverable legal costs from AMMS, which AMMS did not dispute in amount but requested be stayed pending appeal or paid in instalments. The Court ordered AMMS to pay the full amount within four weeks, rejecting both the stay request and the instalment request, and also rejecting Gilead's late-filed request for interest.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE INC. and ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED
This case concerns a discretionary review (Rule 220.3) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The dispute centers on whether KEEEX SAS could introduce a provisional damages claim (€100 million material and €20 million moral) in its reply brief after having initially claimed over €6.6 billion in damages and then agreeing to withdraw that claim. The Court of Appeal rejected the discretionary review, finding the contested order was not manifestly erroneous.