Litigation Decisions
66 cases | Page 1 of 3
Canfield Scientific GmbH et al. v.QUANTIFICARE S.A.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a separate invalidity action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that since the appeal also challenged the first-instance dismissal of Canfield's invalidity counterclaim, the appeal court would itself review the patent's validity, making a stay unjustified. The court further noted that the invalidity action before the Central Chamber was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Canfield Scientific GmbH & Others v.QUANTIFICARE S.A. (EP 3 156 843)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Canfield's application to stay the appeal proceedings pending a revocation action filed by a third party, Manteana Holdings SAS, before the Central Chamber Paris. The court held that no special circumstances justified a stay, particularly because the appeal court would itself review the validity of the patent in the context of Canfield's appeal against the dismissal of its revocation counterclaim, and because the third-party revocation action was at an early stage while the appeal proceedings were already advanced.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities (UPC-CoA-165/2026)
The UPC Court of Appeal issued an order concerning Hurtel Sp. z o.o.'s application for access to the register under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in relation to the concluded main proceedings (UPC-CoA-534/2024) concerning EP 2 867 997. The court held that the language of the access application must correspond to the language of the main proceedings, which was German. Hurtel was granted the opportunity to resubmit its application in German by October 9, 2026.
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin
Hurtel Sp. z o.o. applied to the UPC Court of Appeal for access to the case file of proceedings UPC-CoA-683/2024, in which Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Belkin entities were parties. The main proceedings had been conducted in German, and Hurtel initially filed its access request in a different language. The Court of Appeal held that the language of the access application must match the language of the main proceedings and ordered Hurtel to resubmit its request in German by October 9, 2026.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses NVIDIA's request for reimbursement of court fees paid in error. NVIDIA had filed a reinstatement application and an appeal against the decision on the revocation counterclaim under the wrong case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) before re-filing under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal partially granted the reimbursement, ordering the Registry to refund 2,940 EUR in overpaid appeal fees and 460 EUR in overpaid reinstatement application fees.
NVIDIA Corporation and NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning court fees and a request for reimbursement. NVIDIA had filed an appeal and a request for re-instatement under an incorrect case number (UPC-COA-55/2026) and subsequently re-filed them under the correct number (UPC-CoA-140/2026), resulting in duplicate fee payments. The Court of Appeal ordered partial reimbursement of 2,940 EUR for overpaid appeal fees and full reimbursement of 460 EUR for the overpaid re-instatement application fee.
NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court granted NVIDIA's application for re-establishment of rights under Rule 320 of the Rules of Procedure, allowing NVIDIA to file an out-of-time appeal and appeal brief against the Local Division Munich's decision of March 11, 2026, concerning EP 3 743 812. The respondents (BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG) did not oppose the application. The court found that NVIDIA could not reasonably have known that a separate appeal was required for its conditional nullity counterclaim until the Court of Appeal's clarification order of July 16, 2026 in the Emboline v. AorticLab case.
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries Inc. and American Wave Machines, Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Surf Loch LLC's request for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in pending appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-75/2026) concerning EP 2 728 089. The court held that Surf Loch failed to demonstrate a direct interest that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. WhiteWater had no objections to the request, while American Wave opposed it and sought protective measures.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
This order concerns the release of a cost security deposit (Prozesskostensicherheit) in proceedings before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court regarding European Patent EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had been ordered by the Court of Appeal to provide €150,000 in cost security for the appeal proceedings. After the defendant fully paid the cost assessment amount of €38,230.10 owed to the plaintiff and the plaintiff confirmed receipt, the defendant applied for release of the security deposit, to which the plaintiff consented.
Wittenstein SE v.Vestas Wind Systems A/S
Wittenstein SE brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court against Vestas Wind Systems A/S concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, directed at a wind turbine power transmission system. The court partially revoked the patent in respect of claims 21 and 22 but maintained it as amended according to the Defendant's auxiliary request 1. The court also addressed important headnotes on the interpretation of entitlement under Article 138(1)(e) EPC and the treatment of dependent claims in stand-alone revocation actions.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd.
This is an infringement action before the Unified Patent Court's Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, directed at a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The plaintiff Aesculap AG alleged direct and indirect infringement by three Shanghai-based defendants. The court found Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediary providing services related to the infringing products and issued injunctive relief and information orders against it, while dismissing the claims against the other defendants.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
This procedural order from the Unified Patent Court's Central Division (Section Munich) addressed preliminary issues in a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1. The court ruled that claimant SYPOX GmbH qualifies as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), making its reduced court fee payment adequate. The court provisionally set the value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected SYPOX's request to lower the ceiling for recoverable costs, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted Cilag GmbH International's request for interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-operated surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The court found that the respondents' distribution of the 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero' products infringed claim 1 of the patent. The court ordered cessation of infringing activities in Germany, imposed penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000 per violation, and required the respondents to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court found that HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. infringed European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1, owned by Huwais IP Holding LLC and exclusively licensed to Versah LLC. The patent concerns a rotary osteotome (dental tool) with an enhanced flute profile featuring continuously negative rake angles. The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for revocation and granted injunctive relief, information/accounting orders, recall orders, and a finding of liability for damages.
Windhager Handelsgesellschaft m.b.H. v.bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court held that an appeal filed without the required electronic signature under Rule 4.1 of the Rules of Procedure is not a valid filing, and a subsequently signed appeal submitted after the two-month deadline under Rule 224.1 cannot cure the defect. Windhager's appeal against the Local Chamber Mannheim's decision finding infringement of EP 2 223 589 was therefore rejected as inadmissible, along with its belated applications for restoration of rights and additional filing time.
Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the appellants' (Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH) application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Hamburg's order of August 10, 2026, concerning alleged infringement of EP 4 242 056 (a child seat system patent). While the Court identified a manifest error in the first instance order regarding an unrequested 'insbesondere ohne' (in particular without) addition to the indirect infringement ruling, it found that the suspensive effect could be limited to the distinct part affected by the error. Since Cybex had validly waived enforcement of that specific erroneous part, the appellants' need for legal protection was eliminated.
LS9 GmbH v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH
The Central Division of the Unified Patent Court in Milan issued a final decision in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1, owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH, relating to a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip. The court held that the plaintiff LS9 GmbH, a legal person whose business purpose was seminars and publications, had standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, and that the action was not an abuse of process despite allegations of being a shell company. The court found the subject matter differed from a parallel revocation counterclaim before the Mannheim Local Division, and ultimately dismissed the revocation action insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of the defendant's auxiliary request 1.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of certain claims through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals, partially revoked the patent by limiting it to a specific restricted claim wording, and ordered Hartmann to bear the majority of the costs.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court partially revoked EP 2 755 901, a patent owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S concerning a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann's appeals against the first instance decision were rejected, while Omni-Pac's appeal on the counterclaim for revocation succeeded to the extent that the patent was narrowed to a specific modified claim wording. The court found that the broader claim 1 lacked novelty and/or inventive step over prior art, but the modified claims incorporating additional features (label covering the nose and apertures, nose working as a hook) were patentable.
Hartmann Packaging A/S v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel & Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel
This is a Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann had sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation. The Court of Appeal rejected Hartmann's appeals and partially revoked the patent, limiting it to a specific amended claim wording that incorporated additional features regarding the label covering the nose and apertures and the nose working as a hook.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This order of the UPC Court of Appeal concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights filed by AorticLab in proceedings involving EP 2 129 425. The underlying dispute arose from Emboline's infringement action and AorticLab's conditional counterclaim for revocation, which the Local Division Munich left undecided after finding no infringement. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, granted re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal filed on 24 July 2026 admissible.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC Court of Appeal)
This is a decision by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the decision of the Local Division, but the Court of Appeal dismissed all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals. The court addressed issues including the temporal applicability of the UPC Agreement, the interpretation of patent claims incorporating manufacturing processes, and the jurisdiction of the UPC over pre-existing facts.
AorticLab, srl v.Emboline Inc.
This case before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights. AorticLab had filed a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement, and after the Local Division Munich found no infringement, AorticLab missed the appeal deadline. The Court of Appeal rejected Emboline's request for review, granted AorticLab's application for re-establishment of rights, and declared AorticLab's late-filed appeal admissible.
Knaus Tabbert v.Yellow Sphere and Härtwich (UPC-CoA-365/2025, UPC-CoA-367/2025)
This is an appeal decision of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European Patent EP 3 356 109. Knaus Tabbert appealed against the Local Division's decision, but the Court of Appeal rejected all of Knaus Tabbert's appeals and ordered Knaus Tabbert to bear the court fees and costs of the proceedings. The dispute value was set at EUR 500,000 for each of the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH, Roborock International B.V.
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed PAPST LICENSING's infringement action concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device) against three Roborock entities, finding no infringement of claims 1 and 10. The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on the court finding patent infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim. Costs were split 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants, with the defendants bearing the costs of the revocation counterclaim.
Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
This Court of Appeal decision of the Unified Patent Court concerned an appeal against an order on forfeiture of penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction. Occlutech had obtained a PI against Lepu for alleged infringement of EP 2 387 951 through its MemoCarna ASD and VSD occlusion devices. The Local Division Hamburg had ordered Lepu to pay EUR 58,800 in forfeited penalties for continuing to offer the attacked embodiments via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform despite the injunction. The Court of Appeal rejected Lepu's appeal, finding that its compliance measures, including geo-blocking and disclaimers, were insufficient to ensure compliance with the PI order.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG. v.Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court suspended the cost assessment proceedings (UPC_CFI_256/2025) arising from a previously rejected ex parte application for interim measures concerning European Patent EP 3685783. The court set the dispute value for the interim measures proceedings at EUR 1,000,000.00 and ordered the suspension of the cost assessment until the final decision in the main infringement and revocation proceedings pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
Google LLC, Google Germany GmbH v.BF exaQC AG, ParTec AG
This is a procedural order by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance regarding an application under Rule 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English. Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants in the main infringement action) requested the change, while BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) opposed it. The President granted the application, ordering that the language of proceedings be changed to English, the language in which the patents were granted, without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
Cybex GmbH v.NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 B1, which relates to a child seat system comprising a seat element and a base mountable on a vehicle seat. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted the preliminary injunction in substantial part, ordering the respondents to cease offering and supplying the accused child seat products and base system across multiple UPC member states, and to provide information on distribution channels. The court held that relying on a narrower claim set (combination of Claims 1 and 2) as the main request does not preclude preliminary measures, but refused to admit auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief.
Niche Biomedical, Inc. (doing business as ANEUVO) v.ONWARD Medical N.V.
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the reimbursement of costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant, Niche Biomedical, sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% due to the case's complexity. The court held that the applicant had not made an explicit and clear request to raise the recoverable costs ceiling under Article 2(4) of the Administrative Committee Decision of 24 April 2023, and that a mere request for interim cost reimbursement in a specified amount does not constitute such a request. The court set the recoverable costs at EUR 112,000.00, corresponding to the applicable ceiling for a dispute value of EUR 1,000,000.00.
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.