66 cases · page 2 of 3
Showing 31–59Academy of Military Medical Sciences v.Gilead Sciences, Inc.
This Unified Patent Court Court of Appeal order concerns an application by the Academy of Military Medical Sciences (AMMS) for leave to appeal against a cost decision and for suspensive effect. AMMS's patent EP 3 854 403 had been revoked by the Central Division Milan, which ordered AMMS to pay Gilead Sciences €800,000 in recoverable costs. AMMS argued that the automatic suspensive effect under Art. 74(2) UPCA should extend to the cost decision. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding the scope of Art. 74(2) UPCA was an unresolved question, but rejected the application for suspensive effect for lack of demonstrated exceptional circumstances.
Paris v.Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-08-04) under reference UPC_A654C1AFDB, Paris appeared in dispute with Gilead Sciences, Inc., 333 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA 9, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Julius Blum GmbH v.Arturo Salice S.p.A.
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a combined infringement and revocation action concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438, which relates to a furniture hinge. The plaintiff Julius Blum GmbH alleges infringement of claims 1-5 and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant Arturo Salice S.p.A. has filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. The order addresses procedural matters following an interim hearing, including the value of the dispute, cost settlement, further written submissions, and preparations for the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned cross-appeals regarding European Patent EP 2 642 632. The Local Division Hamburg had dismissed the infringement action and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and declared the proceedings terminated.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This is a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the withdrawal of cross-appeals in a patent dispute involving EP 2 642 632. The Local Chamber Hamburg had previously dismissed the infringement claim and partially revoked the patent. Both parties filed appeals but subsequently withdrew them after reaching an out-of-court settlement, and the Court of Appeal allowed the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings.
Bystronic Laser AG and Others v.ASTES4 SA
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in a patent infringement action. The defendants (Bystronic group entities and Isochronic AG) sought the change to English, the language in which the patent EP2164678 was granted, while the claimant ASTES4 SA opposed it. The President granted the application, holding that all parties are part of international groups equally capable of litigating in English and that the defendants' position prevails when the balancing of interests is equal.
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
Beko Germany GmbH & Arçelik A.Ş v.Dolby International AB
ORDER
WEPA Nederland B.V. v.Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag
This case management order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerned the reimbursement of overpaid appeal court fees. WEPA had appealed an order of the Local Division The Hague confirming a preservation of evidence order and paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees, but argued the correct fee was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the fixed fee under Rule 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR with no additional value-based fee, and ordered the Registry to reimburse 9,600 EUR.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem
ORDER
ALD France S.A.S v.Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
This case before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against patent EP 3 083 107 B1 owned by Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG. The plaintiff requested withdrawal of the nullity action and refund of 60% of court fees, alternatively 50%. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the case terminated, and ordered a 50% refund of court fees (10,000 EUR) under the amended Rule 370.9(b) RoP effective January 1, 2026, rejecting the request for 60%.
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.
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
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
Order
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
ORDER
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns Brita SE's application for renewed coercive monetary penalties against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order of the Hamburg Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1. The defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure about infringing water filter cartridge devices and had continued advertising the infringing products online. The court imposed additional fines totaling 202,500 EUR and threatened further escalating daily penalties of 2,000 EUR for any continued non-compliance.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH v.Network System Technologies LLC
This order from the UPC Court of Appeal addresses disputes over court fees payable on five related appeals arising from infringement and counterclaim-for-revocation proceedings between Qualcomm and Network System Technologies LLC (NST). The court dismissed Qualcomm's request for reimbursement of overpaid fees in one appeal and ordered NST to pay outstanding fees in three other appeals where NST had underpaid by unilaterally halving the value of the action. The court held that fees must be calculated based on the value determined by the Court of First Instance, and parties cannot unilaterally amend that value for fee purposes.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
ORDER
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G
ORDER
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
Ordonnance
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Decision
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This is a procedural order of the UPC Local Division The Hague concerning a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026. The panel reviewed whether a counterclaim for rate-setting filed by the Acer defendants against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. (which had intervened in support of claimant Dolby International AB) should be declared inadmissible. The panel denied the review, confirming the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible, and alternatively added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby, while granting leave to appeal.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l. and Others
This procedural order of the Unified Patent Court's Local Division The Hague concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 that accepted a counterclaim for rate-setting against the intervener Vectis IP Ltd. The panel denied the review sought by claimant Dolby and intervener Vectis, holding that under R. 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may be subject to a counterclaim. The court further added Vectis as a party on the side of Dolby in the alternative, and granted leave to appeal.
Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 v.Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier
ORDER
Promosome LLC v.Promosome LLC
Decision
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.