79 cases · page 1 of 3
Showing 1–29Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.Infoblox Inc. o. a.
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendants (Infoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH) for an order requiring the Claimant (Nixu FL IP Protection LLC) to provide security for legal costs under R. 158 RoP in patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Defendants argued that the Claimant was a newly established litigation vehicle incorporated in Texas in March 2025, that it had no meaningful assets, and that enforcement of a cost award in Florida would be costly and uncertain. The Court addressed whether Florida's statutory requirements for recognizing foreign judgments justified ordering security, and whether the Claimant's asset structure warranted such an order.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED
Dyson Technology Limited filed a request to impose a penalty payment against Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited for alleged infringement of prior court decisions concerning European Patent EP3119235. During an oral hearing in a related case, the parties reached a settlement that included the withdrawal of the penalty request and an agreement that no cost reimbursement would be sought. The court permitted the withdrawal, confirmed that no cost decision was required, and set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000.
Sun Patent Trust v.LYNK & CO International AB o. a.
Sun Patent Trust filed an infringement action against multiple defendants including Lynk & Co, Zeekr, Lotus Cars, and Smart Europe entities concerning EP 2 618 514. The Claimant requested permission to withdraw the infringement action, with all parties agreeing that each would bear its own costs. The Local Division Hamburg permitted the withdrawal and ordered reimbursement of 50% of the court fees to the Claimant.
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order summarizes the interim conference held in two related patent infringement actions (UPC_CFI_494/2025 and UPC_CFI_495/2025) brought by Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD Global Oy concerning European patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The judge-rapporteur recorded the parties' agreement on the value of the proceedings, proposed a framework for reimbursable legal costs, and outlined the schedule and structure of the upcoming oral hearing. Key legal issues were identified for each case, covering claim construction, validity, priority, and infringement questions relating to audio coding/upmixing technology.
Dreame International (HongKong) Limited v.Dyson Technology Ltd.
Dreame International (Hong Kong) Limited filed an application for provisional measures, including a provisional declaration of non-infringement and an injunction, against Dyson Technology Limited in connection with allegations of patent infringement relating to new haircare appliances, concerning EP3119235. During the oral hearing, the parties negotiated and signed a settlement agreement covering all claims. The court confirmed the settlement, treated its details as confidential, permitted the w
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against three Renault entities before the Local Division Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 509 263 B1. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, set the dispute value at EUR 1,000,000, and ordered a 50% refund of the court fees paid by the plaintiff.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v.Renault Deutschland AG a.o.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited filed a patent infringement action against Renault Deutschland AG, Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, and Renault S.A.S. concerning European Patent EP 2 184 891 B1. Before the written proceedings were concluded, the plaintiff withdrew the action, and the defendants consented to the withdrawal. The parties agreed that each side would bear its own costs, and the court issued an order permitting the withdrawal, terminating the proceedings, and directing a 50% refund of court fees to the plaintiff.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda a. o. v.Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH a. o.
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
Horl 1993 GmbH v.Magna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
Brita SE v.Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd.
This case concerns an order by the Local Chamber Hamburg regarding the determination of coercive measures (Zwangsmittel) under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant, Brita SE, had previously obtained an order on December 9, 2025, against Ningbo Blue Pluser Appliance Co. Ltd. prohibiting the marketing of certain water filter devices and requiring disclosure of sales information. The current order addresses the determination of enforcement measures related to that prior injunction.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
This procedural order concerns an infringement action brought by Dyson Technology Limited against six defendants associated with the Dreame group, regarding European Patent EP3119235. The defendants filed a Statement of Defense requesting a stay of proceedings on two grounds: first, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the interpretation of Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Regulation, particularly whether an EU representative can serve as an anchor defendant for a non-EU entity; and second, an alternative request to stay proceedings pending the outcome of opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office, which the defendants expect to be resolved within approximately seven months.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC 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.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED a. o.
Dyson Technology Limited sought provisional measures (a preliminary injunction) against multiple Dreame-related entities and a UK-based company (Cellcom Ltd.) for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 3 119 235, which relates to a hand-held hair care appliance. Dyson asserted that the Defendants' sales of the 'Dreame Dazzle Hair Styler' infringed claims 1 and 11 of the patent, directly or by equivalence. The Local Division Hamburg addressed issues of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I recast regulation, the role of an Authorized Representative in Northern Ireland, and the principles governing split cost decisions.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLC v.INFOBLOX INC. a.o.
This procedural order concerns a request by the three defendants to align the time limit for filing their Statements of Defence in a patent infringement action. The defendants argued that alignment would simplify proceedings and synchronize deadlines, and the claimant's representative had agreed out of court. The court found the request reasonable, noting that the deviation was only about 20 days, and held that while the claimant was not obliged to proactively arrange payment for service in the U.S., it bore the risk of deviating service dates due to its delay in arranging such payment.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order concerns the reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of a patent infringement action. The Claimant, BTL Medizintechnik GmbH, had filed an infringement action regarding EP 4 426 414 against the Defendant, Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L., and subsequently withdrew the action. The Court ordered the Registrar to reimburse the Claimant 60% of the court fees (6,600 EUR) pursuant to Rule 370.9 RoP (2025), as the action was terminated before the closure of the written procedure.
Fives ECL v.REEL GmbH
This case concerns a claim for damages brought by Fives ECL, SAS against REEL GmbH relating to European Patent No. EP 1 740 740. The plaintiff filed a request for determination of damages on August 8, 2023, following a prior patent infringement proceeding between the parties before the Landgericht Düsseldorf. The Local Chamber Hamburg addressed the applicable law for lost profit claims, holding that national (German) law applies when the factual circumstances were completed before the Unified Patent Court came into force on June 1, 2023, and that both national law and the UPCA, being based on Directive 2004/48/EC, should yield the same assessment of lost profits.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Comunication Co., Ltd a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Nera Innovations Ltd. following appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP against an order of the Hamburg Local Chamber dated 24 April 2024, which had rejected the claimant's request to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. through their German subsidiary. The court addressed the scope of reimbursable representation costs, the number of authorized representatives required, and the recovery of travel expenses for oral hearings. The decision establishes that appeal proceedings on specific procedural issues do not require more than one authorized representative and that the standard ceiling of reimbursable representation costs does not apply to such procedural appeals.
Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v.HMD Global Oy
This procedural order concerns a request by the Defendant (HMD Global Oy) for the disclosure of licensing agreements cited by the Claimant (Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft) in its Statement of Claim and pre-trial negotiations, in two related infringement actions concerning European Patents EP 2 380 167 and EP 2 609 590. The Defendant argued that EU antitrust law requires the Claimant to behave transparently in license negotiations and to disclose relevant MPEG-4/AAC standard license agreements, including a bilateral agreement with a third party that allegedly gives rise to patent exhaustion. The Claimant partially agreed to submit its only currently in-force bilateral AAC patent license agreement, subject to confidentiality constraints, while challenging the broader request for disclosure of five historical license agreements with third parties.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Brita SE, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 131 940 B1 relating to water filter devices with locking cartridges, filed a preliminary injunction application against the Polish company Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. The defendant is part of the Fileder Group, whose German distribution subsidiary had previously been warned by Brita for alleged patent infringement and issued a cease-and-desist declaration, subsequently identifying the defendant as the supplier of the allegedly infringing water filter systems. The Local Division Hamburg issued an order on November 6, 2025, following receipt of the application on November 5, 2025.
Dolle A/S v.Farko a.o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 2 476 814 B1, with Dolle A/S as plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, and four FAKRO entities (from Austria, Germany, Denmark, and Poland) as defendants and counterclaimants. The decision addresses three key legal points: the interpretation of 'same invention' under Article 87 EPC for priority purposes, procedural rules regarding the timing of validity attacks in revocation counterclaims, and the interpretation of general claim terms in light of prior art cited in the patent. The Local Division Hamburg issued its decision on November 5, 2025, confirming the disclosure standard for priority as corresponding to the added matter standard.
Malikie Innovations Ltd. v.Nintendo Co., Ltd. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Hamburg in an infringement action and counterclaim for revocation concerning European Patent EP2579551, owned by Malikie Innovations Ltd. against Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of Europe SE. The order summarizes the interim conference held on 22 October 2025, addressing procedural matters including the value of the case, reimbursement of legal costs, parallel proceedings status, the claimant's operational request regarding the counterclaim for revocation, and the admissibility of certain evidence and claim amendments. The judge-rapporteur admitted the Patent Sale Agreement and Patent Assignment Agreement as exhibits and granted leave to amend the patent claims under Rule 263 RoP.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
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.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance issued an order addressing HMD Global Oy's application to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Fraunhofer concerning European patent EP2609590. HMD Global Oy argued that the change was necessary for reasons of fairness, given that the evidence and annexes were predominantly in English, the defendant was based in a non-German-speaking country, and it communicated internally and with its representatives exclusively in English. Fraunhofer opposed the application. The order reflects a weighing of the parties' positions and the relevant circumstances of the case.
Renault Nederland N.V., Renault Retail Group Deutschland GmbH, Dacia S.A., Renault Deutschland AG, Renault S.A.S. v.Respondent
The President of the Court of First Instance of the Local Division Hamburg granted a procedural application by the Renault/Dacia Defendants to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Avago Technologies concerning European patent EP3720095. The Claimant did not object to the application, and the Court relied on the reasoning of a prior order dated 3 July 2025 between the same Claimant and three of the present Defendants. The Court ordered that the language of proceedings be English, the language in which the patent was granted, and that no specific translation or interpretation arrangements would be required.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Nurotron Global SARL, Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
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.
HMD Global Oy v.Respondent
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a request by the defendant HMD Global Oy to extend the deadline for filing its statement of defense by one month in a patent infringement action brought by Fraunhofer. The court denied the extension, holding that the defense deadline under Rule 23 of the Rules of Procedure is already calibrated to permit fact-finding and internal coordination, including across vacation periods, and that the complexity of the FRAND defense involving pool negotiations does not justify additional time where license offers and counter-offers have been on the table for years.
Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED , Dreame Technology AB v.Dyson Technology Limited
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.
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.