European UPC IP Litigation
1,592 annotated decisions
Page 9 of 67 · 1,592 total
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In this procedural order, the Local Division Mannheim rejected Centripetal Limited's attempt to reopen an oral hearing and compel Defendants (Keysight Technologies) to provide source code. The Court emphasized that reopening hearings is a rare exception, not a mechanism for introducing new infringement arguments after proceedings have closed. The decision underscores the strict procedural discipline within the UPC, requiring claimants to raise all substantive issues during the written phase.
3V Sigma S.p.A v.A.G.A. S.r.l.
This UPC decision concerns a request for provisional measures aimed at protecting evidence related to alleged patent infringement in the cosmetic industry. 3V Sigma sought an order to secure technical and commercial documentation regarding a competing UV filter, MFSorb 513. Although the initial protective measure was granted against ACEF Srl, the subsequent appeal/request for review by AGA and ACEF was fully dismissed by the Milan Local Division. The ruling reinforces strict procedural requirements for applicants seeking ex parte evidence protection.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Centripetal Limited v.Keysight Technologies, Inc.
In a significant decision, the Local Division Mannheim dismissed Centripetal Limited's infringement action against Keysight Technologies regarding its patent on efficient network protection. The Court found that the Defendants' products did not infringe the claims of EP 3 821 580 B1. This ruling underscores the high burden of proof required in UPC infringement cases, particularly when dealing with complex technical systems and alternative claim interpretations.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation successfully sought enforcement measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding violations of prior injunctions concerning the supply of infringing fluid delivery devices. The UPC Court of First Instance ruled that EOFLOW was in breach of its obligations, leading to a significant penalty payment being imposed. This decision underscores the strict nature of compliance with interim and final injunctive relief within the Unified Patent Court system.
BARCO NV v.YEALINK (XIAMEN) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY Co. Ltd. and YEALINK (EUROPE) NETWORK TECHNOLOGY BV
This UPC decision concerns the dismissal of a Preliminary Objection filed by YEALINK against BARCO NV. YEALINK had challenged the territorial competence of the Brussels Local Division, but following a favorable ruling from the Court of Appeal confirming jurisdiction, YEALINK voluntarily withdrew its objection. The court subsequently closed the proceedings based on this withdrawal, allowing the main infringement case to proceed.
CooperSurgical, Inc. v.European Distribution Center Motiva BVBA; Establishment Labs S.A.; PulseLavage AB
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 302 292 B1, the infringement action brought by CooperSurgical was withdrawn with the consent of the Defendants. The Court then issued a comprehensive cost decision that significantly favored the Defendants. Despite the withdrawal, the Claimant was ordered to pay over €187,000 in costs and expenses to the defendants, although they were granted reimbursement for 60% of their court fees.
bellissa HAAS GmbH v.Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed Windhager's request to stay the execution of a judgment issued by the Local Division in an infringement case against bellissa HAAS GmbH. Although Windhager had raised revocation defenses, the court found insufficient grounds to grant the stay. The ruling reinforces the high threshold required for obtaining a stay of execution under UPC rules, emphasizing that mere allegations of error are not enough.
Innovative Sonic Corporation v.Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., Realme Chongqing Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., OROPE Germany GmbH, OTECH Germany GmbH, Realme Germany GmbH, Oleading B.V., Reflection Investment B.V., OTECH Italia S.r.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge regarding the language of proceedings in an infringement case involving Innovative Sonic Corporation and OPPO et al. The appeal sought to overturn the initial decision to switch from German to English, arguing that this change created undue costs for the claimant. However, the Court upheld the original order, finding that English was the common working language across the parties' global operations and technology field. This ruling reinforces the court's discretion in prioritizing fairness based on practical factors like industry language and party domicile.
TCL EUROPE SAS v.Corning Incorporated
This UPC decision is an interim order setting the procedural roadmap for a revocation action brought by TCL EUROPE SAS against Corning Incorporated concerning EP 3 296 274. The court confirmed the case value and scheduled an oral hearing for February 3, 2026. Both parties are now focused on preparing detailed submissions addressing inventive step and sufficiency in light of recent Court of Appeal precedents.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. and others (Astronergy group)
In a significant ruling, the UPC Local Division Munich found that Chint New Energy Technology Co. and its affiliates infringed the patent EP 2 787 541 concerning advanced solar cell technology. The court granted an injunction requiring the defendants to cease sales of their 'ASTRO N' series modules in key EU markets (Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands). Furthermore, the claimant was awarded interim costs, and the defendant's counterclaim for patent revocation was dismissed.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA v.Moderna et al.
In a procedural order concerning an infringement and revocation case involving GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA and Moderna et al., the UPC Court of First Instance decided to split the combined counterclaim for revocation. The court found that combining the two counterclaims, one for each patent (EP4066856 and EP4226941), was procedurally impractical given the different opposition stages before the EPO. This ruling highlights the UPC's flexibility in managing complex litigation to ensure procedural fairness and proper fee assessment.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. v.Zhuhai ouguan Electronic Technology Co., Ltd
Hewlett-Packard sought preliminary injunctions against Zhuhai ouguan Electronic regarding its fluid cartridge patents (EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1). Although the court dismissed the application for provisional measures in most aspects, it issued a highly specific order. This ruling forces the defendant to disclose detailed information about the origin and distribution of infringing products, backed by severe daily penalty payments if they fail to comply.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision focused heavily on procedural aspects within an application for provisional measures concerning patent EP 3 732 827. The parties, Barco N.V. and Yealink, contested the competence of the local division and the initial costs order. While the core infringement dispute was not decided, the Court provided clear guidance on divisional competence under Art. 33 UPCA and established a precedent for interim cost awards in provisional measures cases. The ruling is significant for practitioners as it clarifies how courts should approach jurisdictional challenges and the practical application of interim relief mechanisms within the UPC framework.
Barco N.V. v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology B.V.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for provisional measures, focusing heavily on procedural issues such as competence and the awarding of interim costs. The court clarified that internal division competence within the UPC is distinct from EU regulations like Brussels I Recast. Crucially, it established a practical guideline for interim cost awards in these urgent proceedings, setting a precedent for how parties can recover expenses pending final decisions.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc.
This Local Division Mannheim decision addressed procedural requests regarding the access and transcription of an oral hearing in a dispute between InterDigital and Amazon. The Court partially granted the defendants' request, allowing them to listen to the confidential audio recording at another UPC location. However, the core request for a complete, independently produced transcript was rejected. The ruling emphasizes the strict interpretation of procedural rules (R. 115 RoP) regarding hearing records, balancing the need for party access against maintaining confidentiality and preventing misuse outside the UPC framework.
KEEEX SAS v.ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, ADOBE INC., OPEN AI L.P, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS successfully defended its jurisdiction challenge against a large group of defendants including Adobe and OpenAI. The Paris Local Division rejected all preliminary objections, confirming that evidence gathered by a French judicial officer regarding online content is sufficient to establish territorial competence under UPC rules. This ruling reinforces the importance of local evidentiary procedures in establishing infringement grounds within the unified patent court system.
SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. v.STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party intervenor (Streithelfer) when the main party withdraws their appeal. The case involved Strabag and Swarco, with Chainzone intervening to support Strabag's position regarding patent EP 2 643 717. When Strabag settled out of court and withdrew its appeal, the UPC ruled that Chainzone’s intervention became legally moot. This decision clarifies strict rules governing third-party involvement in appellate proceedings.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
In this UPC revocation action concerning a nebulizer head patent, the Court found that the original claim lacked novelty. However, the case demonstrated the critical importance of amendment strategies in UPC litigation. By successfully amending the claims to overcome prior art objections, the defendant managed to save the patent, illustrating how strategic adjustments can preserve IP rights even when facing significant validity challenges.
Sun Patent Trust v.Vivo Mobile Communication Co, Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request by Vivo to stay the ongoing infringement proceedings before the Court of First Instance (CFI). Vivo argued that an unprecedented jurisdictional question regarding active FRAND rate determination needed clarification before proceeding. The Court ultimately rejected this request, holding that VIVO did not meet the threshold for exceptional circumstances required under R. 21.2 RoP. This ruling reinforces the principle that main proceedings generally must continue unless truly extraordinary factors are present.
SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH v.Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
This UPC appellate decision addresses the complex legal status of a third-party assisting party (Streithelfer) when the main supported party withdraws their appeal. Chainzone, acting as an assistant to Strabag, sought to continue its own infringement appeal against Swarco. However, because Strabag reached an out-of-court settlement and withdrew its appeal, the court ruled that Chainzone's independent legal standing was lost. Consequently, Chainzone's appeal was dismissed without subject matter.
Topsoe A/S v.SYPOX GmbH
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC concerns a procedural matter related to an application for inspection and evidence gathering concerning EP 3 802 413 B1. The court did not rule on the merits but instead corrected factual errors in the initial filing, specifically regarding the precise addresses of the respondent's various locations. This highlights the importance of meticulous detail when submitting procedural applications to the UPC.
Barco NV v.Yealink (Xiamen) Network Technology Co. Ltd. and Yealink (Europe) Network Technology BV
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division Brussels stayed a Preliminary Objection raised by Yealink regarding its territorial competence under Article 33(1)(a) UPCA. The Court recognized that the exact same issue is currently pending before the UPC Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_317/2025). This decision ensures procedural economy and prevents contradictory findings between the first instance and appellate courts. Practitioners should note how the UPC manages overlapping jurisdictional challenges across different court levels.