European UPC IP Litigation
2,185 annotated decisions
Page 9 of 92 · 2,185 total
OXFORD NANOPORE TECHNOLOGIES PLC v.MGI TECH GmbH, MGI TECH CO., LIMITED, BGI HANGZHOU CYCLONESEQ TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, SHENZHEN BGI GENOMICS CO., LTD
Provisional measures
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.
Valeo Systemes d'Essuyage v.Robert Bosch (multiple entities)
This is a procedural order from the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time under Rule 9.3 RoP. Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage had sued six Bosch group entities for infringement of EP 4144599 B1, and Bosch filed a counterclaim for revocation. Bosch sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder, arguing it only had access to a redacted version of Valeo's June 15, 2026 filing. The Judge-Rapporteur rejected the request, finding that a non-redacted version was filed simultaneously and that Bosch failed to exercise due diligence.
Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier
Decision
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain
This was an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning a revocation action against European patent EP 4 082 804 owned by Fujifilm. After Kodak filed a revocation action at the Central Division Paris, Fujifilm surrendered the patent to the EPO and requested disposal of the action, but the first instance court ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the cost decision and ordered Kodak to bear the costs at both instances, finding that Kodak had unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings without first giving Fujifilm an opportunity to surrender the patent.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
Appeal
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning a withdrawal of appeal and a request for reimbursement of court fees. The underlying infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 201 740 had been dismissed by the Local Division Hamburg on 19 February 2025. After Lionra filed an appeal, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement and jointly informed the court that the oral hearing should not proceed. Lionra requested withdrawal of its appeal and reimbursement of 20% of the appeal-stage court fees, with Cisco consenting and withdrawing its cross-appeal in the alternative.
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. et al. v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of three appeal proceedings and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in the 4G LTE and 5G NR technology field. Following a settlement between the parties, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees.
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The defendant, BAG Diagnostics GmbH, requested that certain information contained in its pleadings and an annexed document be treated as confidential. The court granted the request, classifying the grey-marked information in the defendant's brief of 29 June 2026 and Annex S 1 as confidential, while noting that any future requests for third-party access to the file would require a case-by-case balancing of interests under Rule 262.6 RoP.
Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. v.Sichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
This is a rectification order issued by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division of Milan, concerning patent EP 3 519 207 B1 ('motorcycles tyre'). Pirelli Tyre S.P.A. sought rectification under Rule 353 RoP of a prior decision dated 26 May 2026, which erroneously stated that Pirelli had filed an opt-out declaration on 30 June 2023 and later withdrawn it on 26 November 2024. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from the prior decision.
AIM Sport Development AG v.TGI Sport France SASU and Others
This case concerns an application for the correction of the Statement of Appeal and the register in proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. AIM Sport Development AG had filed an appeal against an order of the Helsinki Local Division dismissing its infringement action and provisional measures application against multiple TGI entities, but mistakenly included TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited as a respondent. The Court found this to be an obvious error and ordered the deletion of TGI Sport Virtual UK Limited from the Statement of Appeal and from the register.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
ORDER
Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and v.AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland
ORDER
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
This is an order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an application for withdrawal of appeals and reimbursement of court fees. The appellants (Shenzhen Transsion group companies and related entities) had appealed an order of the Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents in 4G LTE and 5G NR technology. After the parties reached a settlement, Shenzhen Transsion applied to withdraw the three appeals with Ericsson's consent, and the Court permitted the withdrawal, declared no cost decision necessary, and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000).
Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd. and others v.Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (PUBL)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court permitted the withdrawal of three appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-100/2026, UPC-CoA-101/2026, UPC-CoA-102/2026) filed by Shenzhen Transsion group companies against an order of The Hague Local Division granting Ericsson's confidentiality measures application in underlying FRAND-related infringement proceedings concerning three European patents. Ericsson consented to the withdrawal following a settlement between the parties, and the Court ordered reimbursement of 50% of the appeal court fees (EUR 2,000) to Shenzhen Transsion.
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 (Benelux), and Acer Computer France
This is a procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division Hamburg in a patent infringement case involving European Patent EP2304723. The Claimant, Fraunhofer, sought an order under Rule 190 RoP directing a third party (the administrator of the Opus standard patent pool) to produce comparable license agreements to support its response to the Defendants' FRAND defense. With the unanimous consent of the Defendants and the third party, the Court granted the production request subject to a strict 'Highly Confidential Information' confidentiality regime.
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
ORDER
Boa Technologies Inc. v.FLA Europe NV and Shinkyung Inc.
This procedural order from the UPC Local Division Düsseldorf concerns EP 3 777 595 B1 and addresses whether the Claimant's Reply to the Statement of Defence (RE), Application to Amend the Patent (AAP), and Defence to the Counterclaim for Revocation (DCfR) should be disregarded for lacking an electronic signature under Rule 4.1 RoP. The Court granted a retroactive extension of time to 13 July 2026, when the Claimant submitted signed versions of these documents, while preserving the original filing date of 4 May 2026.
Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA, Amazon Technologies, Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., Wilmington, Delaware, US
ORDER
Siemens Healthineers AG and Others v.Hologic, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application by Siemens Healthineers AG and related entities for suspensive effect of their appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf, which had found infringement of EP 2 352 431 and dismissed the appellants' counterclaim for revocation. The appellants argued that the impugned decision contained manifest errors in interpreting claim feature 4.1 and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that no manifest error or infringement of fundamental procedural rights had been demonstrated on summary examination, and therefore rejected the application for suspensive effect in its entirety.
Valeo Systèmes 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., and Bosch Automotive Products (Changsha) Co., Ltd.
This procedural order from the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerns a patent infringement action brought by Valeo Systèmes d'Essuyage against six entities of the Bosch group regarding European Patent EP4144599. Valeo sought to unconditionally limit its infringement claims by excluding certain APX-series products and by narrowing the territorial scope to exclude Belgium and Germany for certain defendants, and to withdraw all claims against Defendant 5 (Bosch Produktie). The Judge-Rapporteur granted all of Valeo's requests, finding that the unconditional limitations must be allowed under Rule 263 RoP, that the territorial changes constituted permissible limitations rather than withdrawals, and that Bosch Produktie had no legitimate interest to oppose the withdrawal since the counterclaim for revocation would have erga omnes effect if successful.
Boa Technologies Inc., Dr. Benjamin Grzikmek (CASALONGA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v.(1) FLA Europe NV, Francois Herpe, Cornet Vincent Ségurel 251, boulevard Pereir
Procedural Order