73 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
Procedural Order
Fives ECL, SAS v.REEL GmbH
Fives ECL, SAS sought to recover damages from REEL GmbH for lost profits arising from a patent infringement concerning service modules for electrolytic cells used in aluminum production, related to the 2016 Alba Potline 6 tender in Bahrain. The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court applied national (German) law since the factual circumstances were completed before the UPC came into force on June 1, 2023. The court dismissed the claim, finding that Fives ECL could not establish that it would have obtained the contract even absent the patent infringement, as it could not be excluded that the potential profit would have been lost even if REEL had submitted a non-infringing alternative offer.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. et al.
This case concerns an application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) by the defendants (Xiaomi entities) against the claimant (Nera Innovations Ltd.) in proceedings before the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants sought reimbursement of their representation costs in an appeal under Rule 220.2 RoP concerning service of process, as well as a portion of court fees for the nullity counterclaim. The court partially granted the application, setting the reimbursable representation costs, court fees for the counterclaim at EUR 3,800, and ordering each party to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Others
This case concerns an application for cost assessment (Rule 151 RoP) by the defendants in appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP before the Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court. The defendants sought reimbursement of their representation costs from the appeal proceedings (UPC_CoA_205/2024, APL 24585/2024), in which the Court of Appeal had confirmed the Local Chamber's order rejecting service on Xiaomi entities through their German subsidiary. The court partially granted the application, setting reimbursement amounts for representation costs and court fees for the invalidity counterclaim, while rejecting further claims and ordering each party to bear its own costs of the cost assessment proceedings.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerns HMD Global Oy's request under Rule 190 RoP for Fraunhofer to disclose various MPEG-4/AAC patent license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering Fraunhofer to produce its currently in-force bilateral AAC Patent License Agreement with a third party under strict confidentiality protections, but declined to order production of five expired license agreements and another terminated agreement as not currently justified.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division concerning a defendant's request under R. 190 RoP for the disclosure of licensing agreements related to the Claimant's MPEG-4/AAC standard-essential patent portfolio. The Defendant sought production of five expired bilateral license agreements and two current license agreements to support its FRAND defence and exhaustion arguments. The court partially granted the request, ordering the Claimant to produce the current AAC Patent License Agreement with [..] under strict confidentiality protections, while declining to order production of the expired agreements at the current stage of proceedings.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Anordnung
Dolle A/S v.FAKRO Dachflächenfenster GmbH & Co. KG et al.
This case before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerned European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, which protects a loft/attic staircase (Dachbodentreppe). Dolle A/S, the patent proprietor, sued four FAKRO group companies for infringement regarding the 'GREENSTEP LME Energy Efficient' and 'GREENSTEP LMT Super Thermo' products, while the defendants counterclaimed for revocation. The court largely upheld the infringement claim, dismissed the counterclaim for revocation, and ordered injunctive relief, information, recall, destruction, and damages, with the defendants bearing 90% of the costs of the main action.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2448225. The order summarizes decisions taken during an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing various procedural matters including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence and amendments, and the filing of further submissions. The judge-rapporteur issued orders on the admission of patent sale and assignment agreements, claim amendments, prior art documents, and inventive step objections, while referring certain admissibility questions to the panel for final decision.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551. Following an interim conference held on 22 October 2025, the judge-rapporteur issued decisions on various procedural matters, including the value of the case, admissibility of evidence, amendments to the patent claims, and the introduction of prior art documents. The order admits the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement, both rounds of patent amendments under Rules 30.1 and 30.2 RoP, and prior art documents D6 through D11, while granting the Claimant the right to comment on the newly introduced documents and validity attacks.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
Occlutech GmbH, proprietor of European Patent EP 2 387 951 B1 covering a braided implantable occlusion device, sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical entities for alleged infringement with their 'MemoCarna ASD' and 'MemoCarna VSD' devices. The Local Division Hamburg held that the Defendants' recent CE-mark approval, combined with their public marketing activities and trade fair participation, established imminent infringement and territorial jurisdiction in Germany. The court granted the preliminary injunction, ordering the Defendants to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, or using the infringing devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland, with a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. a.o.
Infringement proceedings were initiated by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL concerning EP 4 074 373 before the Hamburg Local Division. The parties subsequently concluded the proceedings by way of a settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 and jointly requested the Court to confirm the settlement, keep its details confidential, and refrain from issuing a cost decision. The Court confirmed the settlement under Rule 365.1 RoP, ordered that only the redacted version be entered in the register, and declared the decision enforceable as a final decision of the Court.
HMD Global Oy v.Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. (Language of Proceedings)
HMD Global Oy, a Finnish company, requested that the language of proceedings in a patent infringement action before the Local Division Hamburg be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent EP2609590 was granted. The Claimant, Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, opposed the change, arguing that HMD Global, as a multinational company, could reasonably handle proceedings in German. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, finding that the position of the defendant must prevail in the balancing of interests, particularly given that HMD Global is based in a non-German speaking country and would face significant translation burdens.
Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Nederland N.V., Renault S.A.S., and Dacia S.A. v.Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited
This is a procedural order issued by the President of the UPC Court of First Instance concerning an application by the Defendants (Renault group entities) to change the language of proceedings from German to English in a patent infringement action based on EP3720095. The Claimant, Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited, did not object to the application. The Court granted the request, changing the language of proceedings to English, the language in which the patent was granted, without imposing specific translation or interpretation arrangements.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL
This case concerns a procedural dispute about the proper method of serving a Statement of Claim in an infringement action before the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court. The claimant sought to serve the Statement of Claim on the defendant's legal representative from prior provisional measures proceedings, but the court rejected this approach. The court held that a lawyer authorized in provisional measures proceedings is not automatically authorized to represent the same party in a subsequent infringement action, and ordered service to be effected via the Hague Service Convention under Rule 274 RoP.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order on August 21, 2025, rejecting the defendant's request to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a SEP infringement action concerning European Patent EP2380167. The defendant argued that the technical complexity of the MPEG-4 audio standard, the need to prepare a nullity counterclaim, the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations, international litigation coordination, and school holidays of key personnel justified an extension. The court held that the three-month deadline under Rule 23 RoP is already calibrated to accommodate such circumstances, including vacation periods, and that the defendant had been aware of the licensing demands since 2017.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four defendants from the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court partially granted the application, issuing an injunction against all four defendants with respect to one group of attacked embodiments (the 'Staggered Curling Attachments'), while dismissing the claims regarding the second group ('Curling Attachments'). The court also extended the injunction to the Spanish national part of the patent against Defendants 1 and 3.
Ballinno B.V. v.Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon GmbH, Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH
This case concerns an application by Ballinno B.V. for the release of a €56,000 security for procedural costs that had been deposited with the court. The security had been provided pursuant to an R. 158 RoP order in connection with proceedings concerning European Patent EP1944067. Following the termination of appeal proceedings and the parties' entry into a settlement agreement, the Local Division Hamburg ordered the release of the security to the Defendants and the closure of the cost decision procedure.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited sought a preliminary injunction against four entities of the Dreame Group, alleging infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which covers an attachment for a handheld hair care appliance. The Local Division Hamburg granted the injunction against the Hong Kong-based manufacturer, the German distributor, and the Swedish affiliate for the UPCA territory, and against the manufacturer and the German Authorized Representative also with respect to Spain, while dismissing the application for the remaining parts.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This is a cost decision by the Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court following the dismissal of Alexion Pharmaceuticals' application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's marketing of Epysqli®. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its legal costs, and the court partially granted the application, recognizing costs for two legal representatives, two patent attorneys, and an expert, but rejecting costs for two English solicitors as not sufficiently justified.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V. v.Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi Inc., Xiaomi Technology Netherlands B.V., and Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH
Nera Innovations Ltd. sued several Xiaomi group entities for infringement of the German and Dutch parts of European Patent EP 2 642 632 B1, which protects wireless power receivers, based on the Xiaomi 13 Pro and Xiaomi POCO F5 Pro 5G smartphones. The defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation, to which Nera responded with 33 auxiliary requests to maintain the patent in amended form. The Local Chamber Hamburg partially revoked the patent, declaring it null to the extent its subject matter extended beyond claim 1 as maintained in auxiliary requests 1 and 2, while dismissing the further-reaching revocation counterclaim.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
This order from the Hamburg Local Division of the Court of First Instance concerns an application by the Defendants to stay proceedings following the insolvency of two of the three Defendants. Easee B.V. and Easee Holding B.V. were declared bankrupt by the Amsterdam District Court on 27 and 30 May 2025 respectively. The Court granted the stay of proceedings in their entirety for a period of three months under Rule 311.1 RoP, holding that the insolvency of a party does not lead to an automatic stay but that the Court shall stay proceedings upon such declaration.
Steros GPA Innovative S.L. v.OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of Steros GPA Innovative S.L., the exclusive licensee of European Patent EP 4 249 647 B1, against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH for infringement relating to an electrolytic medium used in electropolishing. The court found that the defendant's attacked embodiment (EF 16-11 electrolyte medium) infringed claim 1 of the patent-in-suit, that the patent was likely valid on the balance of probabilities, and that the weighing of interests favored the applicant. The defendant was ordered to cease and desist from the infringing activities across multiple UPC member states, subject to a recurring penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per violation.
Lionra Technologies Ltd. v.Cisco Systems GmbH and Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Local Chamber Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court ruled on an application by Lionra Technologies Ltd. for retroactive extension of time, alternatively reinstatement, regarding the missed deadline under R. 151 RoP for filing a cost determination application. The court rejected the primary request for retroactive extension of time, holding that R. 9.3(a) RoP only permits the court to decide retroactively on a timely-filed extension request, but granted the alternative request for reinstatement under R. 320.1 RoP, finding that the plaintiff's oversight by two employees within a proper four-eyes deadline control system constituted a reason beyond the party's control.
Visibly Inc. v.Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V.
Visibly Inc., proprietor of European Patent EP3918974, brought a patent infringement action against Easee B.V., Yves Prevoo, and Easee Holding B.V. before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg. Visibly requested that the Defendants provide security for procedural costs under Rule 158.1 of the Rules of Procedure, citing the Defendants' weak financial position. The Court ordered the Defendants to jointly provide security in the amount of EUR 75,000 within four weeks, finding this amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate after balancing the competing interests.
Dolby International AB v.Epson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
JingAo Solar Co., Ltd. v.Chint New Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Astronergy Europe GmbH, Astronergy GmbH, Astronergy Solarmodule GmbH, Astronergy Solar Netherlands B.V., and Chint Solar Netherlands B.V.
This procedural order concerns a panel review under Rule 333 RoP of a judge-rapporteur's decision dismissing the Defendants' application to order the Claimant to provide adequate security for costs in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4092759. The Hamburg Local Division rejected the Defendants' request for panel review, finding they had not presented concrete evidence that enforcement of a UPC cost order in China would be unduly burdensome, while granting leave to appeal on the basis that questions regarding the scope and requirements of Rule 158 RoP security applications are of significance beyond the individual case.
AGFA NV v.Guccio Gucci S.p.A. and Others
AGFA NV, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 388 490 B1 relating to a method for decorating natural leather using an achromatic base coat and inkjet-printed colour image, sued nine Gucci entities for infringement concerning the 'Pikarar Collection.' The Defendants counterclaimed for revocation of the patent. The Local Division Hamburg dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, with costs split 40% to the Claimant and 60% to the Defendants.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. & Others
Procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a dispute over the admissibility of arguments regarding auxiliary requests 19/19A and 22/22A in patent amendment proceedings. The defendants (Xiaomi entities) sought to have certain arguments from the plaintiff's reply disregarded as untimely. The court rejected the defendants' request, holding that the plaintiff's reference to earlier explanations for combined auxiliary requests was sufficient under Rule 30.1(b) RoP, and that further deepening of arguments in the reply was permissible under Rule 32.3 RoP.
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.