Litigation Decisions
49 cases | Page 1 of 2
Surf Loch LLC v.WhiteWater West Industries 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, as it was not involved in any current dispute concerning the patent and its reliance on terminated US IPR proceedings and abstract competitive interest was insufficient.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd.
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf ordered the release of a cost security (Prozesskostensicherheit) previously deposited by the defendant in connection with appeal proceedings concerning EP 2 778 423 B1. The defendant had paid the cost assessment amount of EUR 38,230.10 to the plaintiff in full, and the plaintiff consented to the release of the security, rendering the purpose of the security moot.
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 seeking revocation of European Patent EP 4 226 039 B1, which relates to a 'Wind turbine power transmission system.' The Claimant argued invalidity on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and that the patent proprietor was not entitled to the patent under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC. The Court addressed key headnotes on the interpretation of the entitlement ground for revocation 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), Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd
Aesculap AG sued three Shanghai Bojin-related entities for direct and indirect infringement of European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which protects a surgical torque-transmitting instrument with a cutting tool. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found that it lacked jurisdiction over the two Chinese defendants under Rule 116.3 RoP (long arm jurisdiction), but held the European-based Defendant 2 (Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)) liable as an intermediate for offering and distributing infringing drill bits in Germany. The court issued an injunction, information/order disclosure obligations, and coercive penalties against Defendant 2, while dismissing the claims against Defendants 1 and 3 and splitting costs equally between the plaintiff and Defendant 2.
SYPOX GmbH v.Topsoe A/S
In a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 802 413 B1, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed procedural disputes between claimant SYPOX GmbH and defendant Topsoe A/S. The central issues were whether SYPOX qualified as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) for reduced court fees, the appropriate value of the proceedings, whether the ceiling for recoverable costs should be lowered, and whether SYPOX should provide security for costs. The court ruled that SYPOX qualifies as an SME, set the provisional value of the proceedings at EUR 2,000,000, rejected the request to lower the recoverable costs ceiling, and rejected Topsoe's request for security for costs.
Cilag GmbH International, Gubelstraße 34, 6300 Zug, Schweiz, v.Respondent
Cilag GmbH International, part of the Johnson & Johnson group, sought interim measures against RiVOLUTION GmbH and Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on European Patent EP 2 615 984 B1, which protects battery-powered surgical cutting and stapling instruments. The dispute concerned the allegedly infringing products 'EnDrive Orca' and 'EnDrive Zero,' distributed by RiVOLUTION in Germany and manufactured by Chinese companies Ningbo David Medical Device and Ningbo Verykind Medical Device. The central legal issue was urgency, specifically when the applicant could be deemed to have obtained sufficient knowledge of the infringement to act in a timely manner.
Versah LLC, c/o Salah Huwais, DDS, 2000 Spring Arbor Rd., Su, Rechtsanwalt Ole Dirks, Wildanger, Kehrwald, Graf von Schwer v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd., 194, Jisan-ro 175beon-gil, Jinwi-myeon, P, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Alon Tavor POB 1128, Afula
Versah LLC, an exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 directed to a rotary osteotome with enhanced flute profile for dental autografting, sued HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. for infringement. The defendants manufacture and sell dental burs marketed under names such as 'Total Haenaem Bur Set' that allegedly infringe the patent's claims regarding continuously negative rake angles on cutting and densifying faces. A third defendant, Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, was dismissed from the case following an out-of-court settlement. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf addressed issues of standing as exclusive licensee, the admission of a late-filed auxiliary request, and the principles for assessing direct infringement of a product claim.
Nuna International B.V. & Allison GmbH v.Cybex GmbH
This case concerns an application for suspensive effect (stay of enforcement) filed by Nuna International B.V. and Allison GmbH against an order of the Local Division Hamburg dated August 10, 2026, in proceedings concerning alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 242 056 relating to a child seat system. Cybex GmbH, the patent holder, had obtained an order finding it more likely than not that both direct and indirect patent infringement occurred. After initially indicating intent to enforce the order, Cybex declared it would not enforce the disclaimer portion of the indirect infringement ruling. The Court of Appeal addressed whether a valid waiver of enforcement could eliminate the need for legal protection regarding the suspensive effect application.
LS9 GmbH, Garmischer Str. 9, 81373 München v.Bellissa HAAS GmbH, Birkenstr. 22, 88285 Bodnegg-Rotheidlen
LS9 GmbH filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 223 589 B1 (a bed edging with a lockable sheet metal strip) owned by Bellissa HAAS GmbH. The defendant challenged the plaintiff's standing under Article 47(6) UPCA, arguing that LS9 GmbH, whose corporate purpose is organizing seminars and publications, was not sufficiently concerned by the patent. The Central Division (Milan) ruled that legal persons always have standing in revocation actions and dismissed the revocation action only insofar as the patent was maintained in the amended form of auxiliary request 1, with court costs split equally.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This is a Court of Appeal decision concerning EP 2 755 901, a patent for a display and distribution package for eggs owned by Hartmann Packaging A/S. Hartmann sued Omni-Pac for infringement of the patent through its 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac counterclaimed for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf found claim 1 of the patent as granted lacked inventive step but upheld it in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while claim 6 was held valid; the infringement action was dismissed on the merits. Both parties appealed, and the Court of Appeal consolidated the proceedings to address the cross-appeals regarding validity and infringement.
Hartmann Packaging A/S (formerly Brødrene Hartmann A/S), Gen, Düsseldorf, Germany and European patent attorney Jan Sørense v.Omni-Pac Ekco GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany, Omni-Pac GmbH Verpackungsmittel, Elsfleth, Germany
This appeal concerned European Patent EP 2 755 901, relating to a display and distribution package for eggs made of fibrous material. Hartmann Packaging A/S, the patent proprietor, brought an infringement action against Omni-Pac entities regarding 'ComPac' egg packs, while Omni-Pac filed a counterclaim for revocation alleging lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Division Düsseldorf had partially revoked the patent, upholding claim 1 only in amended form according to auxiliary request 2, while maintaining claim 6 as granted, and dismissed the infringement action. The Court of Appeal reviewed the priority claims, novelty, and inventive step issues across multiple appeal proceedings.
AorticLab, srl, Colleretto Giacosa, TO, Italy, and patent attorneys of André Roland SA, Lausanne, Switzerla v.Emboline Inc., Santa Cruz, CA, United States of America
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses a request for review of a clarification order and an application for re-establishment of rights in proceedings concerning EP 2 129 425. Emboline Inc. had filed an infringement action against AorticLab, srl, and AorticLab had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation, making it dependent on a finding of infringement. The Local Division Munich found no infringement and did not decide on the counterclaim. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for review, re-established AorticLab's right to appeal, declared its Statement of appeal and grounds of appeal admissible, and set a two-month time period for Emboline's Statement of response.
Yellow Sphere & Härtwich v.Knaus Tabbert (EP 3 356 109)
This is a final decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary expertise, the interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, the non-mandatory nature of step ordering in process claims, the disclosure content of prior art, and the temporal applicability of the UPCA's substantive provisions to facts arising before June 1, 2023.
UPC Decision UPC_AEE424C001 v.Respondent
This is an end decision (Endentscheidung) of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dated August 17, 2026, concerning an infringement action and a counterclaim for revocation of European Patent EP 3 356 109. The decision sets out fourteen guiding legal principles (Leitsätze) addressing issues including the person skilled in the art's cross-disciplinary knowledge, interpretation of product claims containing manufacturing process features, order of process steps, disclosure content of prior publications, and the temporal applicability of substantive provisions of the UPCA (EPGÜ). The court clarified that the UPC's jurisdiction does not require substantive application of the UPCA, and that completed factual situations predating June 1, 2023 are governed by national law, while ongoing infringements and future remedies fall under the UPCA.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG v.1) Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd.,, 2) Roborock Germany GmbH,
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an infringement action brought by PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG against three Roborock entities concerning European Patent EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device). The defendants had filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation of the patent, which was made dependent on a finding of infringement. Since no infringement was established, no decision was rendered on the revocation counterclaim, and the court allocated costs at 40% to the plaintiff and 60% to the defendants.
Lepu Medical Technology (Bejing) Co., Ltd, Beijing, China v.Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an appeal by Lepu against an order of the Local Division Hamburg forfeiting penalties for non-compliance with a provisional injunction concerning EP 2 387 951. The Court upheld the penalty of EUR 58,800, finding that Lepu had continued to offer the attacked occlusion devices (MemoCarna ASD and VSD) via its own website and the MedicalExpo platform in contravention of the PI order, and that geo-blocking measures alone were insufficient to comply with the injunction prohibiting both offering and placing on the market.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch d v.Respondent
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the suspension of cost determination proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783. The applicant, bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., had previously had its ex-parte application for provisional measures rejected and was ordered to bear costs, with its appeal also dismissed. The respondents sought reimbursement of their appeal costs, but the court suspended the cost determination proceedings until the final resolution of the main infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
1- Google LLC, 2- Google Germany GmbH v.1- BF exaQC AG, 2- ParTec AG
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order regarding an application by Google LLC and Google Germany GmbH (Defendants) to change the language of proceedings from German to English under Rule 323 RoP. The underlying infringement action was brought by BF exaQC AG and ParTec AG (Claimants) based on European patents EP3614263 and EP2164678. The Defendants argued that English should be used as the language of proceedings because it is the language in which the patents were granted, the working language of the Google group, and the predominant technical language in the field. The Claimants opposed the change, arguing that three of the four parties are domiciled in Germany, the Claimants are small entities compared to Google's resources, and their internal working language is German.
Cybex GmbH, Riedingerstraße 18, 95448 Bayreuth, vertreten du v.Respondent
Cybex GmbH sought preliminary measures against NUNA International B.V. and Allison GmbH before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court 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 applicant relied on a narrower claim set combining Claims 1 and 2 of the patent as granted. The court addressed two key procedural issues: whether relying on a narrower claim set precludes preliminary measures, and whether auxiliary requests submitted for the first time in the reply brief should be admitted. The court ordered preliminary injunctive relief against the respondents in multiple UPC member states.
Niche Biomedical, Inc., (doing business as ANEUVO), 10940 Wi v.Respondent
This is a cost decision by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning the assessment of recoverable costs following injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_693/2025) involving EP 3 421 081 B1. The applicant (Niche Biomedical/ANEUVO) sought reimbursement of EUR 168,200.00, arguing the cost ceiling should be raised by 50% under Rule 152(2) RoP. The court held that no proper request to raise the ceiling had been made, as merely requesting reimbursement of costs exceeding the ceiling does not constitute an explicit request to raise it. The court set the recoverable costs at the applicable ceiling of EUR 112,000.00 and rejected the remainder of the request.
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, (Torggler & Hofmann Patentanwälte GmbH & Co KG) v.Arturo Salice S.p.A., Via Provinciale Novedratese, 10, 22060 , Novedrate Como), IT
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 3 392 438 relating to a furniture hinge. Julius Blum GmbH (Austria) sued Arturo Salice S.p.A. (Italy) for infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 16 in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia, while the defendant filed a counterclaim for revocation of those same claims. Following an interim hearing held on July 31, 2026, the presiding judge addressed procedural matters including the value in dispute, settlement possibilities, cost arrangements, expert and witness requirements, interpretation issues, and further written submissions, confirming the oral hearing scheduled for October 1, 2026.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 642 632 after the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Nera Innovations Ltd. had appealed the Local Division Hamburg's decision dismissing its infringement action and partially revoking the patent, while Xiaomi had cross-appealed the counterclaim decision. Both parties consented to each other's withdrawal requests and made no cost applications, leading the court to declare the proceedings terminated.
854/2025 (KLÄGERIN/WIDERBEKLAGTE VOR DEM GERICHT ERSTER INST, Nera Innovations Ltd., Dublin, Irland v.COA-854/2025 (BEKLAGTE/WIDERKLÄGERINNEN VOR DEM GERICHT ERST, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning the admissibility of certain documents and arguments in appeals arising from proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg regarding EP 2 642 632. The Court of Appeal granted Nera's requests to disregard Xiaomi's late-filed expert opinion (Exhibit FBD-T38) and book excerpt (Exhibit FBD-T39), as well as Xiaomi's inventive step arguments based on D1, D2, and D4 that were raised for the first time in the appeal proceedings.
1- Bystronic Laser AG, 2- Bystronic Austria GmbH v.ASTES4 SA, By a statement of claim filed on 2 April 2026, ASTES4 SA bro
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendants (Bystronic Laser AG, Bystronic Austria GmbH, Bystronic Italia S.r.l., and Isochronic AG) to change the language of proceedings from Italian to English in an infringement action brought by ASTES4 SA based on European Patent EP2164678. The President of the Court of First Instance held that the application was admissible, finding that Article 49(5) UPCA does not require the language change request to be included in the Statement of Defence, and therefore R. 323.3 RoP must be interpreted to permit earlier filing. On the merits, after balancing the interests of both parties, the President granted the application, ordering that English—the language in which the patent was granted—be used as the language of the proceedings.
Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany v.Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
In this legal proceeding before Court of Appeal (decision issued on 2026-07-28) under reference UPC_79AAF0ABDE, Beko Germany GmbH., Eschborn, Germany appeared in dispute with Dolby International AB, Dublin, Irland, LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS concerning patent rights and legal remedies.
WEPA NEDERLAND B.V., Swalmen, The Netherlands, Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Munich, Germany and patent attorney D v.ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG, Göteborg, Sweden
This case concerned an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. against an order of the Local Division The Hague dated 22 June 2026, which had confirmed a prior order for preservation of evidence in proceedings initiated by Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag regarding EP 3 289 139. The sole point at issue was the reimbursement of overpaid court fees, as WEPA had paid 14,600 EUR in appeal fees while arguing the correct amount was 5,000 EUR. The Court of Appeal held that under Table IV of the amended Table of Court Fees, the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP was 5,000 EUR, and since the value of the action (400,000 EUR) fell below the 500,000 EUR threshold, no additional value-based fee applied. The Registry was instructed to reimburse 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihr, Rechtsanwältin, v.Bette GmbH & Co. KG, gesetzlich vertreten durch ihre Komplem, Rechtsanwalt Jens Künzel, LL.M., KRIEGER MES & GRAF v. der
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a procedural order on a third-party request for access to court files from a completed patent infringement case between Franz Kaldewei GmbH & Co. KG and Bette GmbH & Co. KG concerning European Patent EP 3 375 337 B1. The applicant, the law firm Gulde & Partner, sought access to pleadings and evidence for internal training and preparation purposes before the Unified Patent Court. The original parties initially opposed the request citing trade secret concerns, but the plaintiff later withdrew its confidentiality objections while the defendant narrowed its claims to specific information about distribution channel removal measures. The court held the request admissible and partially meritorious, granting access to most documents but with redactions where confidentiality interests prevailed.
Verfahrensvertreter: Linklaters LLP, Taunusanlage 8, 60329 F, Anlage 35-37, 60327 Frankfurt am Main v.Golkowsky, Joachimsthaler Straße 10-12, 10719 Berlin, PENTARC Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Schmellerstraße 4, 80337 Mü
This case concerned a nullity action filed by ALD France S.A.S against Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG regarding European Patent EP 3 083 107 B1 before the Central Division (Paris Seat) of the Unified Patent Court. The plaintiff applied to withdraw the nullity action, and the defendant consented. The court granted the withdrawal and terminated the proceedings, but reduced the plaintiff's request for a 60% reimbursement of court fees to 50%, applying the amended Rule 370.9(b) of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on January 1, 2026.
Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH - Raimund-Beck-Straße 1 - 527 v.BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH – Eibachstraße 15 - 57413, Jochen Bühling, KRIEGER MES Rechtsanwälte PartmbB.
The Central Division (Munich) of the Unified Patent Court partially invalidated European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1 concerning a fastening element made of wood and/or wood materials. The plaintiff Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH sought nullity of claims 1, 2, 5, and 8–11 on grounds of inadmissible extension, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The court held the nullity action partially successful, declaring the patent partially invalid to the extent it exceeded the subject matter of auxilia
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.