49 cases · page 2 of 2
Showing 31–48Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany v.Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-17) under reference UPC_CD8ADAC83B, Siemens Healthineers AG, Forchheim, Germany, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Erlangen, Germany appeared in dispute with Hologic, Inc., Marlborough, United States of America, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
FUJIFILM Corporation, Tokyo, Japan v.Kodak, S.A., Madrid, Spain, LANGUAGE OF THE CASE
This appeal concerned the allocation of costs in a revocation action regarding European patent EP 4 082 804 (a lithographic printing plate precursor patent). After Fujifilm surrendered the patent and requested disposal of the action under Rule 360 RoP, the Central Division Paris ordered Fujifilm to bear the costs. The Court of Appeal set aside that cost decision, holding that Kodak unnecessarily initiated the revocation proceedings because Fujifilm had not given rise to the action and had surren
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
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-16) under reference UPC_71B075FF11, Emboline, Inc., Santa Cruz, United States, Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB, Munich, Germany and appeared in dispute with AorticLab srl, Samone, Italy, law of the law firm André Roland, Lausanne, Switzerland concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
23 February 2026 v.Respondent
A European Patent Attorney applied to be registered on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court under Article 48(2) UPCA, relying on a CEIPI diploma and a University of Warsaw diploma. The Registrar rejected the application, and the applicant filed a petition for review, arguing technical difficulties with the CMS and disproportionate burden. The President of the Court of Appeal held the petition admissible but unfounded, finding that the applicant's qualifications did not mee
26 February 2026 v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal rejected an Applicant's petition for review of the Registrar's decision denying confirmation of his registration on the list of entitled representatives under Art. 48(3) UPC Agreement. The Applicant had sought confirmation of an alleged prior registration rather than a new registration, but failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he had ever filed an application in the Case Management System (CMS). The Court held that the petition was admissible but unfounded, as the Applicant could not demonstrate that any prior application had been submitted through the mandatory CMS filing system.
Fives ECL, Ronchin, Frankreich v.Respondent
This order from the Court of Appeal concerns requests for confidentiality and a potential change of the language of proceedings in an appeal between Fives ECL and REEL GmbH regarding patent EP 1 740 740. The first instance Local Division Hamburg had dismissed Fives' infringement claim for damages on February 11, 2026, finding that Fives failed to sufficiently demonstrate lost profits and the required causal link. Fives appealed and filed a confidentiality request under Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. The Court of Appeal addressed the inclusion of a former employee in the confidentiality circle, the continuation of the first instance confidentiality order during appeal proceedings, and the possibility of filing submissions in English.
Düsseldorf, insbesondere Rechtsanwalt Oliver v.Respondent
This case concerns renewed coercive measures against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. for continued non-compliance with a December 2025 order concerning European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1, which relates to water filter devices with cartridges. Despite prior penalty orders, the defendant had failed to provide the required disclosure of sales information and allegedly continued to advertise the infringing products on websites targeting European markets. The Local Division Hamburg found the claimant's application for further penalties successful.
Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States v.Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-15) under reference UPC_B850B9DE31, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, United States, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., San Diego, United States appeared in dispute with Network System Technologies LLC, Portland, United States concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Tridonic GmbH & Co KG, vertreten durch ihre Geschäftsführer, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Clemens Tobias Steins, Patentanwalt und Eur v.Inventronics GmbH, vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Dr. G, Rechtsanwalt Dr. Dirk Jestaedt, Krieger Mes Partnerschaft mb
This case concerned a patent infringement action filed by Tridonic GmbH & Co KG against Inventronics GmbH regarding European Patent No. 2 011 218 B1. Before the written procedure was completed, the plaintiff withdrew the action with the defendant's consent, following out-of-court settlement discussions. The court allowed the withdrawal, reduced the value of the dispute from EUR 1,000,000 to EUR 300,000, and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees to the plaintiff in the amount of EUR 9,500.00.
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited v.Keeex SAS (Discretionary Review of UPC_CFI_530/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated June 1, 2026. The underlying dispute concerned Keeex SAS's patent infringement action regarding EP 2 949 070, in which Keeex introduced a claim for provisional damages of €120 million in its Reply brief. The Court of Appeal found that the Local Division's decision was not manifestly
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC,, Wilmington, Delaware, USA, 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.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., who had intervened in support of the claimant Dolby International AB in a patent infringement action concerning EP3079153. The panel denied the review, holding that under Rule 315.4 RoP an intervener is treated as a party and may therefore be the target of a counterclaim, particularly given the principle of equal treatment. The panel further noted that the Court could rely on Rule 305 RoP to add Vectis as a proper party if necessary, and that the substantive objections raised by Dolby and Vectis (lack of standing, no dominant market position, no FRAND declaration) were matters of substance rather than admissibility.
Dolby International AB v.CPYou B.V., Acer Italy s.r.l.
This procedural order concerns a panel review of a Judge-Rapporteur's order of 1 May 2026 regarding the admissibility of a counterclaim for rate-setting directed against an intervener, Vectis IP Ltd., in an infringement action involving European Patent EP3079153. The panel denied the review sought by the claimant Dolby and the intervener Vectis, confirming that the counterclaim against Vectis is admissible. The panel further held that, in the alternative, Vectis would be added as a proper party, and rejected the request for an extended deadline as moot.
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, legally qualified judge
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-08) under reference UPC_A4239A3062, Angelalign Technology Inc., Maples Corporate Services Limite, Angelalign France Technology SASU, 147 Avenue de Malakoff, 7 appeared in dispute with Align Technology, Inc., 410 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 130, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, v.Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-07) under reference UPC_C777A2BE0D, Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut, appeared in dispute with Promosome LLC, 48 Gurley Road, 06902 Stamford, Connecticut,, Georg A. Rauh of Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwäl concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
does not, in principle, relieve the Claimant of the obligati, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, 675 Town Square Blvd., v.XIAOMI Inc., No. 006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle X, XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd, #019, 9th Floor, Building 6,
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-04-23) under reference UPC_6766E610C8, does not, in principle, relieve the Claimant of the obligati, Advanced Standard Communication LLC, 675 Town Square Blvd., appeared in dispute with XIAOMI Inc., No. 006, floor 6, Building 6, Yard 33, Middle X, XIAOMI Communications Co., Ltd, #019, 9th Floor, Building 6, concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY v.- ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, 32 AVENUE MICHELET, 93400, SAINT-, - ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, 1 ROBERT-BOSCH-PLATZ, 70839 GERLINGEN,
This procedural order concerns a request for simultaneous interpretation filed by the Respondents (Robert Bosch entities) in appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 671 766. The Respondents sought interpretation from French into English and vice versa for the hearing scheduled on 27 April 2026, arguing that their representative lacked sufficient oral fluency in French. The Appellant (Valeo) contested the request and alternatively requested that the entire hearing be conducted in English. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for simultaneous interpretation and ordered that the hearing be conducted in English, citing principles of procedural efficiency, flexibility, and fairness.
Sinocare Inc., No. 265, Guyan Road, Hi-Tech Zone, Changsha,, A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., Via Sette Santi 3, 50131 Fir v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 1360 South Loop Road, Alameda, CA, Nathalie Sabotier, legally qualified judge
This appeal concerned a preliminary injunction granted by the Local Division The Hague in favor of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., the proprietor of European Patent EP 4 344 633 relating to a sensor assembly for continuous glucose monitoring systems. The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected the appeal brought by Sinocare Inc. and A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l., who were found to infringe the patent through their GlucoMen iCan product. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction prohibiting the manufacture, marketing, and sale of the GlucoMen iCan in the UPC territory and ordered the Appellants to pay €200,000 as an interim award of costs.
UPC Decision v.Ex Parte
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-03-17) under reference UPC_34AB24ABE9, The Claimant appeared in dispute with The Respondent concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
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.